Samir Ranjan Bhowmick & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1008 Cal

    10.
7.2.2023
   S.D.
                                   W.P.A. 492 of 2023

                           Samir Ranjan Bhowmick & Ors.
                                        Vs.
                               Union of India & Ors.

                 Mr. P. Chakraborty
                 Mr. Aatarup Banerjee
                 Mr. Bapin Baidya
                 Ms. Ratnadipa Karmakar
                 Mr. Rajdeep Pramanik
                                              ...For the petitioners

                 Mr. Pradi Kumar Tarafder
                 Mr. Subir Pal
                                        ...For the DVC

                 Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained with

           the records.

                 The petitioners are retired employees of the Damodar

           Valley Corporation (in short, DVC). Admittedly, when the

           petitioners were given the option for shifting/migrating from

           the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme to the

           General Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme in 2002, the

           petitioners did not exercise option. The petitioners have

           retired on various dates in 2008 till 2020.

                 Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf

           of the petitioners submits that the prayer dated June 23, 2022

           for switch over from CPF to GPF Scheme should be

           considered by the Director, (HRD) DVC.
                         2




      Mr. Tarafder, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents DVC relies on a judgment reported in (1995)

4 SCC 683 (State of Maharashtra vs. Digamber) in support of

his contention that when the writ petitioner is guilty of laches

or undue delay in approaching the High Court, the writ

petitioner will be disentitled from claiming a discretionary

relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Having considered the rival submissions of the parties

and the materials placed on record, this Court is of the view

that the facts of the judgment in Digamber (supra) is not

applicable to the present case. In the said case, acute scarcity

arose in 23000 villages in the State of Maharashtra and large

scale relief works had to be undertaken by the State

Government to provide employment to small agriculturists

and agricultural labours for earning their livelihood. The

State Government instructed the Collectors and other social

workers to use their good offices to ensure that the land

required for such relief works of the Government is to be

donated to the Government without any claim for

compensation.

The said relief work was carried out in 1971-72. In the

year 1991, a writ petition was sought to be filed for the

purpose of grant of compensation since the Government was

alleged to have used the land without any consent of the writ

petitioner. Such a claim was not accepted by the Apex Court.

This Court relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court,

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8

SCC 648. In that case, the Apex Court was of the view that

the entitlement of family pension could not be denied even

after 16 years as long as the writ petitioner was willing to

restrict her claim for arrears to a period of three years prior to

filing of the writ petition and no settled third party rights

were disturbed.

In the light of the discussions above, this Court is of the

view that in the event, the writ petitioners are willing to

restrict the benefits of their claim that they would be entitled

to upon shifting from CPF to GPF to 3 years prior to the date

of filing of the writ petition, the same may be considered by

the authorities concerned. Admittedly, there is no question of

disturbance of any disturbance of settled rights of the 3rd

parties if benefits of GPF Scheme are granted to the

petitioners.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the representation dated

June 13, 2022 be considered within six weeks from date by the

respondent no. 4/the Executive Director (HRD) DVC.

Such representation is to be disposed of by giving a

personal hearing to the petitioners. A reasoned order is to be

passed and communicated to the petitioners within two

weeks of passing thereof.

Since no affidavits have been directed to be exchanged

in the present writ petition, all the allegations contained in

the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the

parties.

With the direction aforesaid, the writ petition being

W.P.A. 492 of 2023 is disposed of.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order

duly downloaded from the website of this Court.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied

for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all the

formalities.

(Lapita Banerji, J.)