Gautam Sen vs The Union Of India & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 302 Cal/2

OD-28
                               WPO 1136 of 2016
                    IA NO: GA/1/2020(Old No:GA/547/2020)
                       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                         Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                ORIGINAL SIDE




                                GAUTAM SEN
                                    VS
                          THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS



  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
  Date : 17th March, 2021.

                                                                             Appearance:
                                                            Mr. S.P. Chattopadhyay, Adv.
                                                               Mr. Rahul Karmakar, Adv.
                                                                           ...for petitioner.
                                                               Mr. Saptangsu Basu, Adv.
                                                             Mr. Ashok Kumar Jena, Adv.
                                                                        ...for respondent.

The Court : The grievance of the petitioner is directed against illegal and

arbitrary reduction of monthly pension by the respondent KOPT. It is submitted

on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had made a representation dated

28th May, 2015 to the respondent authorities and the same has still not been

considered by the said authorities. The petitioner also relies on a judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 to assert that the respondent

authorities have no right to reduce his pension.

Mr. Basu appears on behalf of the respondent authorities and denies the

submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that whatever steps

have been taken by the respondent authorities are in accordance with law,

justified and proper. He also submits that there is inordinate and unexplained

delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court.

In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am of the view

that the representation of the petitioner ought to be considered and disposed off

by the Senior Accounts Officer, Pension Section of the respondent KOPT

authorities. The entire exercise for consideration of the representation of the

petitioner ought to be completed within a period of six weeks from date after

giving a right of hearing to petitioner and the concerned representatives of the

KOPT.

It is needless to mention that nothing in this order will influence the

Accounts Manager, Pension on the merits of the case.

It is made clear that till the representation of the petitioner is disposed off,

the respondent authorities will not take any steps to initiate fresh proceedings for

recovery of their dues from the petitioner. There will be no further recovery of the

amounts allegedly due and payable from the petitioner to the respondent till

disposal of the representation by the KOPT authorities.

All points are left open to be decided by the aforesaid authority in

accordance with law.

With the aforesaid direction, WP 1136 of 2016 is disposed of.

(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.) SK.