Pradip Kumar Sarkar And ORS. v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

28.07.2025.

Ct.No.7.

as WPA 13600 of 2021 Sri Pradip Kumar Sarkar & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Achyut Basu, Ms. Punam Basu, Mr. Srikumar Chakraborty, Mr. Amritansu Sengupta.

...for the Petitioners.

Mr. Sayantan Bose, Ms. Priyanka Gope.

....for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4.

1.

The present writ petition has been preferred citing inaction on the part of the concerned respondent in considering the petitioners' representation.

2.

The petitioners, being ex-casual labourers of the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority (for short, the Authority), submitted a representation before the competent authority, inter alia, contending that they, as excontractual casual labourers of the authority, are still in occupation of the quarters initially allotted to them by the authority.

The petitioners submit that, in such circumstances, they are entitled to the benefit of settlement of such quarters in their favour under the settlement scheme adopted by the authority.

3.

Mr. Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if the matter is remitted to the appropriate authority with a direction to consider their request for settlement of the quarters in accordance with the applicable scheme. 4.

Ms.

Gope, learned Advocate representing the respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that whether or not petitioners' claim are justified needs to be looked into. 5.

Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, particularly taking note of the stand taken by the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioners' representation dated 14th September, 2016, and to decide the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

6. It is clarified that I have not gone into the merits of the petitioners' claim ventilated in the representation. All points are kept open to be decided at the time of consideration of the petitioners' representation. 7.

If respondent No. 3 finds any substance in the petitioners' claim, appropriate follow-up action shall be taken. This may include the grant of settlement of the quarters in favour of the petitioners. However, if respondent No. 3 finds that the petitioners' claim lacks merit, a reasoned order shall be passed and the same shall be communicated to the petitioners.

8. The entire exercise shall be concluded within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. It is also clarified that respondent no. 3 may either act in terms of this order himself or depute any other competent person to act in compliance with the same.

10. Petitioners are directed to place a copy of the writ petition along with all annexures thereto and a copy of this order before respondent No. 3 within a period of one week from the date.

11. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

12. There will be no order as to costs.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)