Union Of India And ORS. v. Dipali Maity

23.06.2021 SL No.4 Court No.16 (gc) WPCT 25 of 2021 The Union of India & Ors.

Vs.

Ms. Dipali Maity @ Bhunia (Via Video Conference) Mr. Rabindranath Bag, Mr. Debasish Chattopadhyay, ...for the Petitioners.

The private respondent is not represented.

We have been informed by the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners that the private respondent has refused to accept service. We find from record that the present petitioners filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench being M.A.

No.350/00849 of 2019 on 22nd January, 2021 for extension of time to comply with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The petitioners having accepted the said order now complain that the order might not have been passed correctly. The order dated 22nd January, 2021 is not under challenge. It appears from the order dated 22nd January, 2021 that the application was filed beyond the period of twelve months within which time the present petitioners ought to have filed the application for extension of time in the event the petitioners faced any difficulty. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 26th June, 2019 after a lapse of almost two years is unacceptable.

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to allow this writ petition. The writ petition, being WPCT 25 of 2021, accordingly stands dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs. This order shall be communicated to the sole respondent, Ms. Dipali Maity @ Bhunia, by the office concerned by Speed Post with Acknowledgement Due within one week from date.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)