Dr.Mangesh Anandrao Bankar v. The Chairman, Animers

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/245/2021 Dr. Mangesh Anandrao Bankar Vs.

The Chairman, ANIMERS Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar .... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakaraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondent March 19, 2024 [SR] Item No.8 Heard Shri Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shatadru Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner claims that in paragraph Nos. 7 and 11 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Associate Professor Pharmacology in the last week of December, 2014 on the basis of offer of appointment dated 23.12.2014 issued by the respondent No. 1, on a consolidated pay of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month with an increment of 10% in the consolidated remuneration after completion of every one year of continuous services.

The grievance of the petitioner is that initially 10% increment in the consolidated remuneration was given by the respondent No. 1 but since the year 2018 it has not been paid despite the issue raised by the petitioner before the respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the respondents objected to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that at first instance the petitioner may make representation raising all his grievance before the respondent No. 1,

who shall take an appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within time bound period.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsels for the parties as aforenoted, this writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the respondent No. 1 raising all his grievance within 3 weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. In the event, the petitioner submits a representation within the stipulated period then the respondent No. 1 shall take appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law, within next 6 weeks, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Decision so taken by the respondent No. 1 shall be communicated by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner within next one week.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner.

With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of. ( Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. )