Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta v. The State Of West Bengal Adn ORS.

Ct. No.4 D/L 01.07.2025 (Naba) 06 W.P.S.T. 65 of 2025 Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Ms. Sabnam Majumder, Ms. Kalpita Paul ...for the Petitioner Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, ld. AGP, Mr. Sayan Ganguly ...for the State Mr. Sourav Mondal ...for the Principal Accountant General/Respondent No.4 1.

The petitioner approached the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'S.A.T.') by filing O.A. No. 821 of 2022. The S.A.T. has considered the matter based on the stand of the petitioner as well as the State respondents and directed the petitioner to submit an asset declaration statement for the last three years of his service. Thereafter the respondents have been directed to process the matter with a view to payment of the petitioner's pensionary benefits subject to certain clearances which are recorded in the order of the S.A.T.

2.

When the matter is called on today, we have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what is the infirmity in the order based on which this Court should exercise judicial review of the order

dated 31.01.2025 passed by the S.A.T. in O.A. No. 821 of 2022.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities have not proceeded in terms of the order. The process which they were required to undertake in terms of the order passed by the S.A.T. in the O.A., has not been carried forward and the authorities are dragging their feet in the matter.

4.

Since no submissions have been made regarding any infirmity in the order of the S.A.T., there is no scope for this Court to proceed further in the matter. If the petitioner is aggrieved by inaction on part of the respondents, or their defiance with the directions issued by the S.A.T. in the impugned order, it is open to the petitioner to avail remedy for execution/action for non-compliance of the order in accordance with law.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner approaches the S.A.T., a direction should be given for timely disposal of the contempt application.

6.

As of today, there is no contempt application filed by the petitioner.

7.

In the circumstances, we only observe that if the petitioner invokes the remedy, it is needless to say and expected that the S.A.T. would proceed

expeditiously without granting any undue adjournments or any unnecessary delay.

8.

The Writ Petition being W.P.S.T. 65 of 2025 is disposed of.

9.

There will be no order as to costs.

10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)