Disposed¶14

Sanatan Murmu @ Sanatan Murmmu v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC9 Feb 2026WP.ST/180/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kolkata Police constable dismissal 1993 on criminal conviction; acquittal 2002 (Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 1993 with Criminal Appeal no. 33 of 1996); post retiral benefits / pensionary dues; continuing cause of action; nearly 25 years qualifying service 1968-1993; Police Regulation of Calcutta, 1968; O.A. No. 158 of 2021 West Bengal Administrative Tribunal dismissed; representation to Commissioner of Police respondent no. 2; writ disposed with liberty; no opinion expressed on merits; Sanatan Murmu @ Sanatan Murmmu; W.P.S.T. 180 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata Police (respondent no. 2) with a detailed representation regarding his post retiral benefits; writ petition disposed of without adjudication on merits. ¶14

Sanatan Murmu @ Sanatan Murmmu Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to post retiral benefits (pensionary dues) in view of his acquittal in the criminal case which was the only basis of his 1993 dismissal, requiring the authorities to revisit the matter in accordance with the Police Regulation of Calcutta, 1968. +1 more

¶10

Ratio / Principle

In view of the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner, and with liberty as prayed for, the Court disposed of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to pursue his cause (a detailed representation to the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata Police, respondent no. 2).

¶14

Key takeaways

The Court expressly made clear that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition disposed of with liberty - no opinion on merits. Petitioner, a former constable of Kolkata Police, was dismissed by order dated 13.09.1993, the dismissal being founded solely on his conviction dated 04.09.1993 in Phoolbagan P.S. Case No. 108 of 1992. He was thereafter acquitted on 21.05.2002 by the appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 1993 with Criminal Appeal no. 33 of 1996. Relying on the acquittal, he sought post retiral benefits (pensionary dues); his original application O.A. No. 158 of 2021 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal was dismissed. Counsel urged that the benefits are due as a continuing cause of action, the petitioner having served from 1968 to 1993 (nearly 25 years, completing qualifying service), and that the authorities were required to revisit the issue per the Police Regulation of Calcutta, 1968 but failed to do so. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata Police (respondent no. 2).

¶1

09.02.2026 Sl. No. 36 Ct No. 4 SG

¶2

W.P.S.T. 180 of 2025

¶3

Sanatan Murmu @ Sanatan Murmmu Vs

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Shuvanil Chakraborty, Mr. Ratul Das.

… for the petitioner

Mr. Tirthankar Dey.

….for the State

The writ petitioner (a constable in Kolkata Police) was dismissed by an order dated 13.09.1993. The dismissal was founded on his conviction dated 04.09.1993 in Phoolbagan P.S. Case No. 108 of 1992. The petitioner was subsequently acquitted on 21.05.2002 by the appellate court by its judgment dated 21.05.2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 1993 with Criminal Appeal no. 33 of 1996. Relying upon such acquittal, the writ petitioner approached the authority for grant of post retiral benefits. Pursuing the same cause of action, he filed an original application bearing no. O.A. No. 158 of 2021 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. The same has been dismissed.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner that the post retiral benefits are due to the petitioner in view of his acquittal in the criminal case which was the only basis of his dismissal. The conviction having gone, the authorities were required to revisit the

¶11

¶12

issue in accordance with the provisions contained in the Police Regulation of Calcutta, 1968, which they have not done. He submits that the petitioner’s claim to post retiral benefits (pensionary dues) is a continuing cause of action. Prior to his dismissal on the ground of conviction, he had served for nearly 25 years and thereby completed the qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension. He submits that he served from 1968 to 1993.

¶13

It is submitted that relying on these facts, he would approach the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata Police respondent no. 2 by making a detailed representation.

¶14

In view of such submission and with liberty as prayed for, we dispose of the writ petition.

¶15

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the submission advanced by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner.

¶16

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

¶17

(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)

Sanatan Murmu @ Sanatan Murmmu v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanatan Murmu @ Sanatan Murmmu v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imran Khan Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Piklu Roy Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Krishna Gopal Roy Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sanchita Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Abhijit Tie Up P Ltd. and Ors. Vs Vivek Kumar State of Wb Additional Chief Secretary and Ors.

State of West Bengal and Anr. Vs Meer MD Yasin and Ors.