Asim Kumar Samanta vs Union Of India & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 3332 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Asim Kumar Samanta vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 December, 2025

OD-03

                          WPO/307/2024
                 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                          ORIGINAL SIDE


                         Asim Kumar Samanta
                                Versus
                         Union of India & Ors.



Before:
The Hon'ble Justice RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY
Date: 10th December 2025

                                                                Appearance:
                                                 Ms. Arunima Lala, Advocate
                                                 Ms. Ankita Singh, Advocate
                                                           for the petitioner
                                           Mr. Prasun Mukherjee, Advocate
                                            Mr. Deepak Agarwal, Advocate
                                                for the respondent nos. 2-4

The Court: 1. Affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply filed

by the parties in Court today are taken on record.

2. The learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 has

placed before this Court the judgment delivered by this Court in the case

of Harapriya Puri vs. Union of India & Others in WPA/8096/2023 on 10th

October 2024 and would submit that the coordinate Bench has refused

to entertain a challenge as regards denial of death benefits payable by

the respondent no.2 on the ground that the respondent no.2 is not

amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. According to him, though

an appeal was preferred thereupon, which has been registered as

FMA/1161/2024, after conclusion of hearing the judgment has been

reserved, as would appear from the order dated 27 th November 2025.

3. Having heard the learned advocates representing the

respective parties, I am of the view that since the issue as to the

maintainability of the writ petition against the respondent no.2 is

pending consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench, it would be

prudent, at this stage, to wait for the outcome of the decision to be taken

by the Hon'ble Division Bench.

Accordingly, let the matter go out of the list for the time being

with liberty to mention to the parties.

(RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.)

R. Bose