Parimal Kumar Dey v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.
In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Judgment (2) Appellate Side Moumita Daily list Item No. 39 Court No. 2 Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Aniruddha Roy W.P.A. 21558 of 2025 Parimal Kumar Dey Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Dilip Kumar Chatterjee Mr. Durga Bhusan Mukherjee For the State :
Mr. Pinaki Dhole Mr. Sankar Halder For the CSTC :
Mr. N. C. Bihani, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soumyajit Ghosh Heard on :
24.10.2025 Judgment on :
24.10.2025 Aniruddha Roy, J.:
1. Affidavit-of-service, filed in Court today is taken on record.
2. Mr. Dilip Kumar Chatterjee, learned Counsel along with Mr. Durga Bhusan Mukherjee, learned Advocate appears for the petitioner.
3. Mr. Pinaki Dhole, learned advocate appears for the State.
4. Mr. N. C. Bihani, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Soumyajit Ghosh, learned Advocate appears for the CSTC.
5. The petitioner claims monetary benefits on account of Leave Encashment for 300 days instead of 180 days. The petitioner submitted a representation dated June 18, 2025 (wrongly typed as 18.06.2020) and July 29, 2025, Annexure - P6 at pages 30 and 31 to the writ petition but the same has not yet been considered.
6. In view of the above, the respondent no.6 is directed upon issuing a prior hearing notice of at least seven days to the petitioner and after granting him an opportunity of hearing shall consider the said representations dated June 18, 2025 (wrongly typed as 18.06.2020) and July 29, 2025 Annexure - P6 at page 30 and 31 to the writ petition by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.
7. The entire exercise shall be carried out and completed by the respondent no.6 positively within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The reasoned order shall be communicated to the petitioner within a further period of one week from the date of the said reasoned order to be passed.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner and the petitioner shall be at liberty to urge whatever points he wishes to urge by relying upon whatever records, documents, rules and provisions of law before the respondent no.6 but the same shall not travel
beyond the scope of the said representation dated June 18, 2025 (wrongly typed as 18.06.2020) and July 29, 2025.
9. In the event the reasoned decision goes in faovur of the petitioner, then the appropriate State authority including the appropriate authority of the Finance Department of the State shall take all necessary and consequential steps to give an immediate effect to the said reasoned order but positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order to such appropriate State authority.
10. The payment shall be released in favour of the petitioner positively within a period of six weeks from the date of the said reasoned order to be passed by the appropriate State authority and/or the appropriate authority of the Finance Department of the State.
11. It is made clear that, this order shall not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioner if the petitioner does not succeed to his claim before the respondent no.3 strictly in accordance with law.
12. It is also made clear that if the petitioner is found to be eligible to receive Leave Encashment Salary the necessary reasoned order shall also be passed even if it is not for 300 days but strictly in accordance with law and the consequential directions as directed above shall be carried out strictly as a mandatory directions of this Court.
13. Since affidavits are not called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.
14. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition WPA 21558 of 2025, stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.
15. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.
(Aniruddha Roy, J.)