Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Sufal Chandra Hait vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 September, 2023
W.P.A. 20703 of 2017
13 15.09.2023
rkd Ct.15
Sri Sufal Chandra Hait
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Md. Sarwar Jahan,
Mr. S. N. Thander,
Ms. Mousumi Mitra
....for the petitioner.
Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay,
Mr. Arka Kumar Nag,
Ms. Tapati Samanta
....for the State.
By filing the present writ petition, inter alia,
petitioner has prayed for service benefits from the
month of July, 2002 instead of 13th April, 2005 in
view of the fact that petitioner was appointed as the
Secretary of Polgustia Gram Panchayat under
Jagatballavpur Block, District- Howrah pursuant
to the order dated 15th May, 2002 passed by the
coordinate Bench on a writ petition being WPA
20270 of 1999. According to the petitioner after the
order was passed on 15th May, 2002 petitioner
should have been appointed contemporaneously
and had he been appointed in the year 2002 he
would not have lost service period from the month
of July, 2002 till the month of April, 2005.
Therefore, it has also been submitted that
for the purpose of computation his retiral dues
including pension after superannuation, the service
2
of the petitioner may be notionally treated with
effect from July, 2002 instead of 13th April, 2005.
The learned advocate representing the State
respondents has opposed the prayer of the
petitioner since an intra Court appeal being MAT
1697 of 2002 was preferred against the order dated
15th May, 2002 passed by the coordinate Bench
and the final order was passed on the said appeal
on 22nd February, 2005 and thereafter petitioner
was appointed vide letter dated 13th April, 2005.
According to the State respondents there is no
delay on the part of the State respondents in
appointing the petitioner in the aforesaid post in
view of pendency of the appeal before the Hon'ble
Division Bench.
It has also been submitted that there is
laches and acquiescence on the part of the
petitioner since petitioner accepted the
appointment vide letter dated 13th April, 2005
without any demur and subsequently filed the writ
petition in 2017 claiming service benefits from
July, 2002.
Having considered the submissions made
on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the
relevant materials available on record I find there is
substance in the contention made on behalf of the
State respondents. The delay as alleged by the
petitioner in appointing him cannot be
countenanced in view of the fact that the appeal
being MAT 1697 of 2002 was disposed of on 22nd
February, 2005 which was preferred by the State
respondents against order passed by the coordinate
Bench on 15th May, 2002.
In view of preferring an appeal and
subsequent disposal of the same on 22nd February,
2005, this Court cannot infer that there is
conscious delay on the part of the State
respondents in appointing the petitioner.
Apart from the aforesaid aspect there is
delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching
the Court with the present writ petition since
appointment was made in favour of petitioner vide
letter dated 13th April, 2005 and after precisely for
a period of twelve years the present writ petition
was instituted on 2nd August, 2017 claiming service
benefits from July, 2002; contemporaneously
petitioner did not make any representation or
complaint contending that he should have been
treated as appointed with effect from July, 2002.
It is trite law that there is no period of
limitation in preferring the writ petition but
normally steps should be taken by the litigant
within a reasonable time and three years has been
found to be reasonable by the Apex Court in the
judgment of Shiv Dass -vs- Union of India, reported
in (2007) 9 SCC 274.
In above conspectus, the writ petition
stands dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this
order, if applied for, be given to the learned
Advocates for the parties on the usual
undertakings.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)
