Dismissed¶¶20

Jiban Kumar Sandhu v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC16 Apr 2026MAT/668/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer order Vishakhapatnam; W.P.A. 7481 of 2026; voluntary retirement application; whether counsel's oral submission before Single Judge can be examined in intra-Court appeal — held, cannot be gone into; appeal dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to file review petition and stay application; no opinion on merits or tenability of review; M.A.T. 668 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026; bench: Sujoy Paul, CJ. and Partha Sarathi Sen, J.; decided 16.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the appellant to seek review of the order dated 30th March, 2026 passed in W.P.A. 7481 of 2026 on all possible grounds, and to file an application for stay. ¶¶20

Jiban Kumar Sandhu Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the appellant to seek review of the order dated 30th March, 2026 passed in W.P.A. 7481 of 2026 on all possible grounds, and to file an application for stay.

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the aspect as to whether counsel for the appellant raised, before the learned Single Judge, the submission regarding the pending voluntary-retirement application can be gone into in this intra-Court appeal. +1 more

¶¶15

Court's answer

The aspect whether counsel for the appellant raised the submission regarding the pending voluntary-retirement application before the learned Single Judge cannot be gone into in this intra-Court appeal.

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the appellant to file a review petition against the order dated 30th March, 2026 in W.P.A. 7481 of 2026 and a stay application.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

The Court expressed no doubt that the learned Single Judge will deal with the review application in accordance with law and will hear the stay application at the earliest.obiter¶¶20
The appeal stands disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits or on the tenability of review.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

M.A.T. 668 of 2026 (dictated by Sujoy Paul, CJ., with Partha Sarathi Sen, J.) — Intra-Court appeal against the disposal of W.P.A. 7481 of 2026 (filed mainly against transfer to Vishakhapatnam) on the aspect of the appellant's alleged voluntary-retirement application: the Bench held that whether the appellant's counsel had actually raised that submission before the learned Single Judge is an aspect that cannot be gone into in an intra-Court appeal. Faced with this, the appellant's counsel withdrew the appeal and was granted liberty to seek review of the order dated 30th March, 2026 on all possible grounds and to file a stay application (in view of a Department order dated 17.04.2026), to which the other side had no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits or on the tenability of review; the Court expressed no doubt that the learned Single Judge would deal with the review application in accordance with law and hear the stay application at the earliest.

¶1

16.04.2026 Item No.16 Ct. No.1 KS

¶2

M.A.T. 668 of 2026

¶3

With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026

¶4

Jiban Kumar Sadhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Swapan Banerjee Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee Mr. Rabinder Pathak Mr. Tirupati Mukherjee …..For the Petitioner Mr. Chirantan Dawn Mr. Goutam Sardar Mr. Goutam Malik

¶6

…..For the U.O.I.

¶7

DICTATED BY SUJOY PAUL, CJ.:

¶8

Parties are represented through their

¶9

respective learned counsels.

¶10

Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the petitioner filed W.P.A. 7481 of 2026 mainly against the order of transfer to Vishakhapatnam.

¶11

Neither in the pleadings nor in the prayer of writ petition, petitioner prayed for any direction regarding any application seeking voluntary retirement. Thus, the learned

¶12

¶13

Single Judge ought to have decided the validity of transfer order and should not have disposed of the petition on the aspect of alleged application of appellant seeking voluntary retirement by the appellant.

¶14

Counsel for respondents/Employer, on the other hand, urged that the counsel appearing before the learned Single Judge orally made such submission about pending application for voluntary retirement, which is duly recorded in the order-sheet.

¶15

In our opinion, this aspect as to whether the counsel for appellant raised such submission or not cannot be gone into in this intra-Court appeal.

¶16

Faced with this, Sri Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of this appeal with the liberty to seek review of order dated 30^th March, 2026 passed in W.P.A. 7481 of 2026 on all possible grounds. In addition, he submits that he will file an application for stay, in view of

¶17

¶18

subsequent order passed by Department on 17.04.2026.

¶19

The other side has no objection, in this regard.

¶20

is dismissed as 8. Appeal accordingly withdrawn with the liberty to file review petition and stay application. In that case, we have no doubt that learned Single Judge will deal with the review application, in accordance with law and will hear the stay application at the earliest.

¶21

With the aforesaid observation and without expressing any opinion on the merits and on the tenability of review, this appeal stands disposed of.

¶22

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.

¶23

(SUJOY PAUL, CJ.)

¶24

(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)

Jiban Kumar Sandhu v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiban Kumar Sandhu v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prahelika Kar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kamal Kumar Boral and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Nawal Kishore Tharad & Ors. Vs Mira Dutta

Clc Tanners' Association & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gouranga Jana and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Prasenjit Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.