Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Madhuresh Prasad, Supratim Bhattacharya, JJ
Dipak Roy Chowdhury – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the initial rejection of compassionate appointment claim highlights the importance of timely application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. subsequent representations do not reset the limitation clock for filing applications. (Para 4 , 5 , 11) |
| 3. section 20 and section 21 of the act provide strict guidelines on the admissibility of applications. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. the tribunal's dismissal reinforces adherence to procedural timelines. (Para 10 , 16) |
| 5. delay in exercise of legal rights undermines the validity of claims for relief. (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner has assailed rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment by an order dated 01.12.2016 passed by the Commission of Textile & Sericulture, West Bengal by filing an Original Application eight years thereafter that is in the year 2024. The Tribunal has rejected the Original Application bearing O.A. 112 of 2024 by its order dated 04.04.2024. A miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner for bringing on record additional documents and additional prayer has also been rejected.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
