Dismissed¶15

Kabita Mukherjee v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC2 Feb 2026WPA/13756/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Basic pay and pension computation grievance of widow of Ranaghat College clerk; prayer for special enquiry by special officer into alleged corruption; Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Science and Technology and Bio-Technology (Integrated Law Cell) order dated May 8, 2018 rejecting arrear salary claim of Rs.2,51,082/-; direction to DPI West Bengal for pay fixation and resulting unchallenged pay fixation; earlier challenge to Joint Secretary order dismissed for default on December 14, 2022; no subsisting interim order; writ petition dismissed, no order as to costs; WPA 13756 of 2025; single judge (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.).

What did the court decide?

The writ petition fails and is dismissed: since the Joint Secretary's order and the DPI's pay fixation stand unchallenged, the writ petition cannot be entertained. ¶15

Kabita Mukherjee Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

02.02.2026 27 sdas

WPA 13756 of 2025

Kabita Mukherjee Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. S. K. Ahmed

¶6

..…. for the petitioner

¶7

Mr. Swapan Kumar Datta, learned GP Mr. Dipankar Das Gupta

¶8

.….. for the State

¶9

Mr. Arpan Kundu …… for the respondent no. 4

¶10

The petitioner seeks constitution of a special enquiry by a special officer to detect <corruption involved by which the legitimate claim of the petitioner has been turned down=.

¶11

The only grievance of the petitioner is that the basic pay, on the basis of which pension has been calculated for her, after the demise of her husband, who was a clerk in the Ranaghat College, has been incorrectly computed. By an order dated May 8, 2018, pursuant to an order of this Hon’ble Court, the Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Science and Technology and Bio-Technology (Integrated Law Cell) had already held that the petitioner’s claim for arrear salary of Rs.2,51,082/-, was not permissible. By the very same order Joint

¶12

¶13

Secretary had also directed the Director, Public Instruction, West Bengal, to look into the matter of pay fixation. Pursuant thereto, DPI had also made the necessary pay fixation, which has not been challenged.

¶14

I have been informed that the order of the Joint Secretary had been challenged before this Hon’ble Court and an interim order was in subsistence till the matter was dismissed for default on December 14, 2022.Thus, there is no subsisting interim order at the present moment.

¶15

In view of the aforestated, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed as in view of the subsistence of the order of the Joint Secretary and the order of the DPI which have not been challenged, this writ petition cannot be entertained.

¶16

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶17

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking.

¶18

(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)

Kabita Mukherjee v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kabita Mukherjee v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samar Kumar Roy Vs Canara Bank and Ors.

Kakali Tarafdar (Banerjee) and Ors. Vs the Mission Director, Paschim Banga Rajya Shishu Shiksha Mission, Gov. of Wb.

Suparna Mali Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Mithu Saha Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

MD Abdul Rouf Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rabindranath Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.