The Calcutta High Court reaffirms its power to convert service-related writ petitions into representations, mandates hearing and reasoned orders within fixed timelines, and upholds existing precedent—serving as binding authority for subordinate courts in administrative law disputes over employee benefits.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/19023/2025 of PRABIR KUMAR BERA Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0381202025 |
| Date of Registration | 18-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 26-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Roy |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single-Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Service Matter) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be treated as a representation and directed to be considered with a reasoned order on a leave encashment claim. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 may be treated as a representation for service-related claims and directed the concerned authority to issue a seven-day hearing notice and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks. It clarified that merits are not adjudicated by the Court, which only ensures procedural fairness. Specific timelines were imposed for communication and implementation of any favorable decision. The petitioner remains free to rely on records, rules and provisions of law before the authority, but no equity arises unless the claim succeeds. The directions balance judicial oversight with administrative discretion in adjudicating employee benefit disputes. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, an employee of CSTC, claimed leave encashment for 300 days instead of 180 days. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking treatment of the petition as a representation. No admissions were recorded on affidavit; the Court directed respondent no.3 to consider the petition after hearing. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in administrative/service law matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court confirms its power to treat a service-related writ petition as a statutory representation without adjudicating merits.
- It mandates a minimum seven-day prior hearing notice before considering the representation.
- A reasoned order must be passed within eight weeks, with communication to the petitioner within one week of that order.
- If the decision favors the petitioner, the State must implement consequential steps within four weeks and release payment within six weeks.
- Clarifies that no right or equity arises if the claim is unsuccessful, but the authority may still grant leave encashment for fewer days strictly in accordance with law.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner claimed entitlement to encash leave for 300 days instead of the sanctioned 180 days and sought treatment of the writ petition as a representation.
- The Court noted its power under Article 226 to direct administrative authorities to consider representations with hearing and reasoned orders.
- It prescribed procedural timelines: seven-day notice, eight-week decision period, one-week communication, and defined windows for implementation and payment.
- The Court emphasized that it would not delve into merits or create any enforceable right if the representation is rejected.
- The directions ensure procedural fairness while preserving administrative discretion under service rules.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Claimed monetary benefits for leave encashment of 300 days instead of the sanctioned 180 days.
- Urged that the writ petition be treated as a representation and considered on merits by the appropriate authority.
Factual Background
The petitioner, an employee of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation, filed WPA 19023/2025 under Article 226 claiming encashment of 300 days’ leave instead of the 180 days allowed under rules. He sought a writ directing the authority to decide his entitlement. The High Court treated the petition as a representation, ordered a hearing notice of at least seven days, and laid down timelines for a reasoned order, communication, and implementation. No admission of facts was recorded on affidavits.
Procedural Innovations
- Formalized the conversion of a writ petition into a representation for service matters.
- Imposed clear timelines: seven-day hearing notice; eight-week reasoned decision; one-week for communication; four-week implementation; six-week payment.
- Clarified the limited role of the Court in procedural oversight without determining substantive entitlement.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms the High Court’s established power to treat writ petitions as representations and direct administrative action.