Disposed¶22

Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta v. the State of West Bengal Adn Ors.

Calcutta HC1 Jul 2025WP.ST/65/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.S.T. 65 of 2025; Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of West Bengal & Ors.; judicial review sought of S.A.T. order dated 31.01.2025 in O.A. No. 821 of 2022 concerning asset declaration and payment of pensionary benefits subject to clearances; no infirmity in the Tribunal's order demonstrated; writ petition disposed of, no costs; petitioner advised to pursue execution/action for non-compliance before the S.A.T., expected to act expeditiously; no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Since no submissions were made regarding any infirmity in the S.A.T.'s order, there is no scope for this Court to proceed further with judicial review of that order. ¶15

Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta Vs the State of West Bengal Adn Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Ct. No.4 D/L 01.07.2025 (Naba) 06

¶2

W.P.S.T. 65 of 2025

¶3

Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Ms. Sabnam Majumder, Ms. Kalpita Paul

¶5

...for the Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, ld. AGP, Mr. Sayan Ganguly

¶7

...for the State

¶8

Mr. Sourav Mondal

¶9

...for the Principal Accountant General/Respondent No.4

¶10

The petitioner approached the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘S.A.T.’) by filing O.A. No. 821 of 2022. The S.A.T. has considered the matter based on the stand of the petitioner as well as the State respondents and directed the petitioner to submit an asset declaration statement for the last three years of his service. Thereafter the respondents have been directed to process the matter with a view to payment of the petitioner’s pensionary benefits subject to certain clearances which are recorded in the order of the S.A.T.

¶11

When the matter is called on today, we have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what is the infirmity in the order based on which this Court should exercise judicial review of the order

¶12

¶13

dated 31.01.2025 passed by the S.A.T. in O.A. No. 821 of 2022.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities have not proceeded in terms of the order. The process which they were required to undertake in terms of the order passed by the S.A.T. in the O.A., has not been carried forward and the authorities are dragging their feet in the matter.

¶15

Since no submissions have been made regarding any infirmity in the order of the S.A.T., there is no scope for this Court to proceed further in the matter. If the petitioner is aggrieved by inaction on part of the respondents, or their defiance with the directions issued by the S.A.T. in the impugned order, it is open to the petitioner to avail remedy for execution/action for non-compliance of the order in accordance with law.

¶16

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner approaches the S.A.T., a direction should be given for timely disposal of the contempt application.

¶18