Calcutta High CourtWPA/16454/2003dismissed

Anindya Kumar Chatterjee v. Managing Director, L.I.C. Of India

2021-09-16Hon'Ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri2 pages

Form No. J(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri WPA 16454 of 2003 Anindya Kumar Chatterjee Vs.

Managing Director, L.I.C. of India & Ors.

For the Respondent:

Mr. D.K.Kundu, Adv.

Mr. A.Basu, Adv.

Heard on : 11.08.2021 Judgment on : 16.09.2021 Bibek Chaudhuri, J.:

Petitioner remains unrepresented.

Learned Advocate for the respondents is present. On the basis of the submission made by the learned Advocate for the respondents, the instant writ petition is taken up for hearing. The petitioner was an employee of Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter L.I.C. for short). In the instant writ petition he challenged a promotion list published by the L.I.C. Authority on 29 th April, 2002, as his name did not find place in such promotional post.

During pendency of the instant writ petition, the petitioner retired from service on superannuation. Subsequently, he filed writ petition being No.WP 24829(W) of 2007 raising his grievance in respect of finalization of the amount of commuted pension. The same writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 24th June, 2008 directing the respondent authority to consider a representation to be filed by the writ petitioner making his claim of retiral benefits.

It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondents that the issue has already been finally settled and final payment of retiral benefit was paid to the petitioner. In view of such circumstances and on acceptance of final retiral benefits, grievance against promotional post, when the petitioner was in service becomes infructuous.

I have carefully perused the contention of the petitioner made in the instant writ petition as well as in WP No.24829(W) of 2007. I am in conformity with the learned Advocate for the respondents that the instant writ petition becomes infructuous in view of petitioner's retirement on superannuation and on full and final payment of retiral benefits.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed on merit. (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)