Shri Jyotirmoy Sarkar vs Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4054 Cal

03.08.2021           IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Sl. No.8           CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
   (PP)                    APPELLATE SIDE
                        (Via Video Conference)

                           WPA 11445 of 2021

                       Shri Jyotirmoy Sarkar
                                Vs.
                   Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors.

                 Mr. Puspal Chakraborty,
                 Ms. Prisanka Ganguli,
                 Mr. Somdev Ash
                                              ....for the petitioner.

                 Mr. Dipankar Ghosh
                                                       ...for DVC.

                 Mr. Mrinal Kanti Mukherjee,
                 Mr. Subhajyoti Chandra
                                    ....for the respondent no.4.

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on

record.

The petitioner says that after introduction of the

Sixth Pay Commission by the Central Government in

the year 2006, the Central Government has amended

Rule 10 of the Central Services (Revised Pay) Rules,

2008 and shifted the date of awarding annual yearly

increment to all Central and State Government

employees to 1st July of each of year. The petitioner

seeks shifting of this date of 1st July because an

employee, according to the petitioner, who completes

one-year service before 1st July of a particular year is

deprived of such annual yearly increment if he or she

is superannuated before 1st July of that year. The

petitioner has made several representations to his

employer, Damodar Valley Corporation in this regard,

but such representations have remained

unaddressed. The petitioner also refers to some

judgments along with the representations in support

of his case.

It is an admitted position that the representations

made by the petitioner has remained unaddressed.

Unless the view of the petitioner's employer is known,

the writ Court is not in a position to consider the

petitioner's grievances

In such circumstances, I direct the Executive

Director, Accounts and Finance Department,

Damodar Valley Corporation, who according to the

advocate representing Damodar Valley Corporation, is

the appropriate authority to consider the petitioner's

representations to decide on the petitioner's

representations annexed to the writ petition. The said

Executive Director shall, within a period of eight

weeks from date, decide on the petitioner's

representations by passing a reasoned order after

granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of

hearing following the present applicable protocol. The

reasoned order on being passed shall be immediately

communicated to the petitioner.

Since the respondents are represented, no further

notice shall be given to any of the respondents.

The Executive Director, Accounts and Finance

Department, Damodar Valley Corporation, who is,

however, not a party to the writ petition shall act on a

server copy of this order without insisting upon a

certified copy thereof.

By way of an abundant caution, the petitioner is

directed to serve a copy of the writ petition along with

this order on the said Executive Director, Accounts

and Finance Department, Damodar Valley

Corporation within seven days from date.

Nothing further remains to be adjudicated in this

writ petition. The same is disposed of accordingly

without any order as to costs.

Since I have not called for any affidavits,

allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to

have not been admitted by the respondents.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties on usual

undertakings.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)