← Library
Calcutta High CourtWPA/110/2020disposed

Khathija v. The Union Of India And ORS.

2023-03-16Hon'Ble Justice Aniruddha Roy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ...

WPA/109/2020 Sasi Kala

Versus

The Union of India and others Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Ramendu Agarwal ... for the respondents March 16, 2023 [AKB] Item No.8 This is a hearing matter where affidavits were complete.

The petitioner claimed to be a widow and was working as a Daily Rated Mazdoor with the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The husband of the petitioner was working with the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 since 1994 and died on January 24, 2016. After the demise of the husband, the petitioner-widow claimed the benefit of supernumerary post in place and instead of her deceased husband. The petitioner submitted a representation dated December 9, 2019, Annexure P-16 at page 71 to the writ petition. Such representation had not yet received any attention of the state authority.

Mr.

Shatadru Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, this writ petition is not maintainable and the grievance of the petitioner should have been ventilated before jurisdictional Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Mr. Jayapal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the order dated August 27, 2019, Annexure P-14 at page 67 to the writ petition passed by a Coordinate Bench. He submitted that the petitioner does not claim any relief on merit in this writ petition but claimed that the representation of the petitioner should have been and should be considered by the appropriated authority on the administrative side. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and for the ends of justice on a limited issue of consideration of the said representation of the petitioner which is lying pending before the state authority nearly about four years and same should have been considered by

the state authority in exercise of its administrative authority, this writ petition is entertained to a limited extent as indicted hereunder.

To sub serve justice the respondent No. 6 is directed to consider the said representation of the petitioner dated December 9, 2019, Annexure P-16 at page 71 to the writ petition and to come to a conclusion with reason in accordance with law The entire exercise as directed above shall be carried out by the respondent No.6 positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The reasoned decision then shall be communicated to the petitioner by the respondent No. 6 positively within a further period of two weeks from the date of the said reasoned order to be passed.

It is made clear that this order will not create any equity and right in favour of the petitioner, in the event the petitioner is not eligible to receive her claim strictly in accordance with law. The respondent No.6 shall pass its reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. This order is being passed on specific undertaking of the petitioner that, in the event the reasoned decision of the respondent No. 6 goes against the petitioner, she shall challenge the same before the appropriate forum and through an appropriate proceeding strictly in accordance with law.

On the above terms this writ petitioner being WPA/109/2020 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.

(Aniruddha Roy, J.)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ...

WPA/110/2020 Khatija

Versus

The Union of India and others Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Ramendu Agarwal ... for the respondents March 16, 2023 [AKB] Item No. 9 This is a hearing matter where affidavits were complete.

The petitioner claimed to be a widow and was working as a Daily Rated Mazdoor with the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The husband of the petitioner was working with the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 since 1996 and died on December 12, 2015. After the demise of the husband, the petitioner-widow claimed the benefit of supernumerary post in place and instead of her deceased husband. The petitioner submitted a representation dated December 6, 2019, Annexure P-17 at page 71 to the writ petition. Such representation had not yet received any attention of the state authority.

Mr.

Shatadru Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, this writ petition is not maintainable and the grievance of the petitioner should have been ventilated before jurisdictional Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Mr. Jayapal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the order dated August 27, 2019, Annexure P-15 at page 67 to the writ petition passed by a Coordinate Bench. He submitted that the petitioner does not claim any relief on merit in this writ petition but claimed that the representation of the petitioner should have been and should be considered by the appropriated authority on the administrative side. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and for the ends of justice on a limited issue of consideration of the said representation of the petitioner which is lying pending before the state authority nearly about four years and same should have been considered by

the state authority in exercise of its administrative authority, this writ petition is entertained to a limited extent as indicted hereunder.

To sub serve justice the respondent No. 6 is directed to consider the said representation of the petitioner dated December 6, 2019, Annexure P-17 at page 71 to the writ petition and to come to a conclusion with reason in accordance with law The entire exercise as directed above shall be carried out by the respondent No.6 positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The reasoned decision then shall be communicated to the petitioner by the respondent No. 6 positively within a further period of two weeks from the date of the said reasoned order to be passed.

It is made clear that this order will not create any equity and right in favour of the petitioner, in the event the petitioner is not eligible to receive her claim strictly in accordance with law. The respondent No.6 shall pass its reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. This order is being passed on specific undertaking of the petitioner that, in the event the reasoned decision of the respondent No. 6 goes against the petitioner, she shall challenge the same before the appropriate forum and through an appropriate proceeding strictly in accordance with law.

On the above terms this writ petitioner being WPA/110/2020 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.

(Aniruddha Roy, J.)