SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 7095

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
SOMNATH DAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. – Respondent
WPA 4703 / 2025



Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

WPA 4703 of 2025

Somnath Das

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the petitioners : Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee

Mr. Badrul Karim

Ms. Suparna Dutta

For the Howrah : Mr. Sandipan Banerjee

Municipal Corporation Mr. Ankit Sureka

For the respondent nos. : Mr. Md. Manuwar Ali

1, 2 and 7.

Heard on : 02.12.2025. Judgment on : 02.12.2025

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a

direction upon the respondents to release and disburse the petitioner’s pension, gratuity and leave encashment along with

other retiral benefits in accordance with law.

2. It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner was originally working

with Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited for the period between 10th January, 1990 to 20th May, 1997. Subsequently, in the year 1997, he tendered resignation

whereupon he was released from Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited on 28th January, 1997.

3. Pursuant to an advertisement published by Howrah Municipal Corporation inviting applications for the post of Personnel Officer amongst other posts, the petitioner having participated become successful and was appointed on probation vide office order dated 7th April, 1997. His service was later confirmed to the post of Personnel Officer under Personnel Department with effect from 21st May, 1998 as per the resolution no. 27 of the MIC decision dated 24th July, 1998. Later, in the year 2011, vide office order dated 3rd January, 2011, he was directed to assume charge of law officer in addition to his duties until further order. After successfully completing his service career he retired from service in the afternoon of 30th April, 2021, as would corroborate from the superannuation letter dated 5th April, 2019. According to the petitioner, although the petitioner has retired from service, the petitioner has, till date, not been disbursed with his retiral benefits including pension, gratuity and leave encashment.

4. Records would reveal upon the writ petition being moved, by an order dated 27th March, 2025, an opportunity was granted to the petitioner to add Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance (DPPG) and Director of Local Bodies (DLB) as party respondents in the present proceedings. Since then, the added respondent no.7 has appeared and filed affidavit-in-opposition. I find from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.7 that although steps had been taken to process the petitioner’s pension papers, by reasons of certain audit observations the office of the respondent no.7 returned the pension file to the Howrah Municipal Corporation vide memorandum dated 14th March, 2024.

The relevant office memorandum is extracted hereinbelow:

5. Mr. Sureka, learned advocate appears for Howrah Municipal Corporation, has placed before this Court the communication dated 18th November, 2025 to contend that the clarifications sought for by the respondent no.7 have duly been provided vide the aforesaid memorandum. Copy of the aforesaid communication dated 18th November, 2025 as placed by Mr. Sureka in Court has already been taken on record. Mr. Sureka would like to highlight that although, other clarifications including wrong fixation of pay had been provided, however, the issue as regards lack of 7 years’ of experience in the personnel administration department, which was flagged, having regard to the Government Order dated 19th March, 1991 read with Government Order dated 30th November, 1998 which required 7 years of experience as an essential qualification for appointment in the post of personnel department was not fulfilled by the petitioner since, the petitioner only possessed 5 years 11 months and 20 days of experience as on the date of publication of the advertisement dated 1st January, 1996. According to him, as there is no available Government order in the file r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top