Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Ad 138) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 December, 2022
Court No. 17 WPA 19629 of 2022
13.12.2022 Mani Mohan Samanta
(AD 138) Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
(S. Banerjee)
Mr. Tulsidas Maiti
Ms. Namita Basu
... for the petitioner
Mr. Arun Kumar Roy
Mr. Arun Kumar Saha
... for the State
In this matter the petitioner's prayer is to release
arrear pension from 01.06.2010 to 27.08.2014, i.e.,
from the date following the date of his retirement and
not from the date of refund.
In this regard the petitioner has relied upon a
judgement passed by this court in a similar matter. This
matter will also be guided by the same order passed in
WPA 7691 of 2022 as the petitioner has submitted that
the facts are similar in both the matters. The order is as
follows:
"One review application, being RVWO No. 5 of
2022, in connection with the judgement and order
passed in APO 121 of 2007 which arose out of WP No.
1528 of 2002, has been filed. The State-respondents
have submitted that against this Special Bench
judgement they moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court but
the SLP has been dismissed. However, from a copy of
the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 1398 of 2020 it
appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held -
"We are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgment passed by the High Court.
Special Leave Petitions are dismissed."
From the said order it appears that this is not a
plain and simple dismissal of SLP. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has categorically stated that it is not inclined to
interfere with the impugned judgement passed by the
High Court. Therefore, the SLP was dismissed on merit
as it was not a plain and simple dismissal of SLP.
Therefore, I do not know under what provision of
law such a review application could be filed after
dismissal of the SLP as the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgement
passed by the High Court. I am told that the review
application has been filed with one condonation of delay
application. Such review application has not been
moved till date and it is an application with delay.
Therefore, under the law there is no existence of
the review application unless the application for
condonation of delay is allowed. In any event, I have
serious doubt whether such a review application after
dismissal of SLP can be filed and I hold that such a
review application, after dismissal of SLP on merit as
stated above, cannot be filed. This is only an endeavor
to delay the matter.
Therefore, I do not accept the contention of the
State-respondents that one review application is
pending from the appeal court's order as has been
stated above.
This writ application is allowed."
Learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Maiti,
has submitted that his client is not praying for any
interest on the arrear pension.
Considering such submissions of the parties, I
direct the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 to pay the arrear
of pension for the period, as has been prayed for in the
writ application, after verification of such particulars for
the period and to pay the arrear pension within a period
of six months from date.
With the above direction and observation this writ
application is disposed of.
(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.)
