The Calcutta High Court clarified that in writ petitions seeking service-related benefits (such as leave encashment), the court may direct the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s representations after affording an opportunity of hearing, without adjudicating on the merits itself. This judgment affirms existing procedural law and serves as binding precedent within its jurisdiction for similar cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WPA/21558/2025 of PARIMAL KUMAR DEY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. CNR WBCHCA0431662025 |
| Date of Registration | 09-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 24-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Roy |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench: Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Roy |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Calcutta High Court; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Administrative/Constitutional law – Writ Jurisdiction) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the writ court can grant direct relief on the merits of service claims, or should direct the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law and procedure. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court did not go into the merits of the petitioner’s claim for leave encashment, instead directing the competent authority to grant an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order. The entire exercise must be concluded within stipulated timelines, and consequential/state authorities must comply. No right or equity is created in favour of the petitioner unless the competent authority finds merit. The writ court may not adjudicate merit-based service entitlements in the first instance. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner sought monetary benefits for leave encashment for 300 days instead of 180, had made representations dated 18.06.2025 and 29.07.2025, but no decision had been taken on them by the authorities. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities subject to Calcutta High Court jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; indicates standard procedural practice in service writ petitions |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reaffirmed that in service writ matters, the writ court may decline to adjudicate the merits directly and instead direct the competent authority to consider pending representations with a reasoned order.
- No rights or equities are created simply by the court’s procedural direction; ultimate relief depends strictly on the decision of the competent authority.
- Petitioners retain liberty to present all grounds and documents before the competent authority, but only within the ambit of the specified representations.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the petitioner’s claim for enhanced leave encashment, noting that representations on this issue were pending consideration by the competent authority.
- Observing that the authority had not yet decided the representations, the Court deemed it inappropriate to adjudicate the merits of the claim in writ jurisdiction.
- The Court directed the competent respondent to issue a prior notice, grant an opportunity of hearing, consider the petitioner’s detailed representations, and pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law.
- Time-bound directions ensured the process would be completed expeditiously, and the result communicated to all relevant parties.
- The Court clarified that no equity or substantive right accrues to the petitioner by virtue of the order unless such right is found to exist after proper statutory consideration.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought monetary benefit of leave encashment for 300 days instead of 180 days.
- Asserted that representations dated 18.06.2025 and 29.07.2025 remained unconsidered.
State/CSTC
- No specific arguments detailed in the judgment; appearance of counsel was recorded.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a former employee of CSTC, claimed entitlement to leave encashment for 300 days instead of 180 days. He submitted representations dated 18 June 2025 and 29 July 2025 seeking this benefit. No decision had been taken on these representations by the competent authority at the time of filing the writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment did not discuss or interpret any specific statutory provision, but emphasised consideration of the petitioner’s claims “strictly in accordance with law and applicable rules and provisions,” as invoked in his representations.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment reinforced the practice that, where representations by employees remain pending, the writ court may issue directions for consideration by the competent authority rather than adjudicating the merits.
- Set strict and specific timelines for completion of the entire process, communication of decision, and compliance by State authorities.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms established High Court practice in directing competent authorities to decide pending service-related claims rather than adjudicating them on merits at the writ stage.