Dhiraj Kumar Sandil v. The State Of West Bengal And ORS

OD-5 ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/814/2024 DHIRAJ KUMAR SANDIL

Versus

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE Date : 25th SEPTEMBER, 2024.

Appearance:

Mr. Debdutta Basu, Advocate . . .For the petitioner.

Mr. Naba Kumar Das, Advocate Ms. Rajyashree Mukherjee, Advocate ........For the State Ms. Deblina Chattaraj, Advocate . . .for WBTC Ltd.

The Court:-Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

The petitioner says that his name is registered and recorded in all documents and testimonials as Dhiraj Kumar Sandil, son of Kavindra Prasad Thakur. The petitioner was given appointment in Calcutta Tramways Company (1978) Ltd. (in short "CTC") now known as West Bengal Transport Corporation Limited (in short "WBTC") as Dhiraj Kumar Sandil (Thakur). The petitioner says that the suffix "Thakur" after "Sandil" is likely to create confusion particularly in respect of his service related benefits. The petitioner also says that he is suffering from

carcinoma and as such wants the deletion of the suffix "Thakur" after his name in the records of WBTC so that his legal heirs and heiresses are not put into trouble in his absence. The petitioner has made a representation for such deletion of the suffix "Thakur" to the Managing Director of WBTC on 5th March, 2024 which appears at page no.39 of the writ petition.

The Managing Director of WBTC, being the Respondent No. 4, is directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation within a period of six weeks from date after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and to place the documents that the petitioner intends to rely upon for deletion of the suffix "Thakur" after his name in the service records of WBTC. The Respondent No.4 upon considering the health condition of the petitioner should rationally and as expeditiously as possible recommend the correction, if he finds the same is permissible in law. Nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Since I have not called for any affidavit, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J) JM/pa