Affirming the Power to Convert Writ Petitions into Representations, Direct Hearing and Timelines for Government Authorities on Service Benefit Claims – Binding on State Authorities, Persuasive for Other High Courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/19022/2025 of TANAY GHOSH Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0381192025 |
| 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 | Affirms existing practice of remitting writ petitions as representations |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law / Service Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a High Court can treat a writ petition under Article 226 as a representation and remit it to the competent authority for a reasoned decision on entitlement to leave encashment. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, an employee of the State Transport Corporation, sought leave-encashment benefits for 300 days instead of the statutory 180 days. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 claiming monetary benefits. The High Court directed the petition to be treated as a representation, granted a hearing opportunity, and stipulated timelines for decision and payment without deciding the merits itself. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Respondent No.3 (competent authority) and the State Finance Department of West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering remittal of writ petitions as representations |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that a writ petition under Article 226 can be treated as a representation and remitted to the administrative authority for adjudication on service benefit claims.
- Mandates issuance of a prior hearing notice of at least seven days and a reasoned order within eight weeks, with communication within one additional week.
- Establishes clear implementation timelines: four weeks for administrative compliance and six weeks for payment release if the order is favorable.
- Clarifies that the High Court will not decide merits of entitlement but ensures natural justice through procedural safeguards.
- Emphasizes that no right or equity accrues if the representation is rejected—any entitlement must strictly follow statutory provisions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Maintainability & Remittal: The petition is maintainable under Article 226 and can be treated as a deemed representation to the appropriate authority.
- Natural Justice: A hearing notice of at least seven days must be issued, and the petitioner allowed to present submissions and rely on records, rules, and legal provisions.
- Stipulated Timelines: The authority must pass a reasoned order within eight weeks and communicate it within one further week.
- Implementation: If the order is in favor of the petitioner, the State authorities (including the Finance Department) must complete necessary steps within four weeks and release payment within six weeks.
- No Merits Adjudication by Court: The High Court expressly refrains from assessing the substantive claim, reserving the merits for the administrative authority.
- Strict Compliance: Any entitlement less than the claimed 300 days must still comply strictly with legal provisions; no equity arises from this order alone.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed entitlement to leave-encashment benefits for 300 days instead of the statutory 180 days.
- Sought treatment of the writ petition as a representation for administrative decision rather than immediate adjudication.
Factual Background
The petitioner, employed by the State Transport Corporation, alleged that he was entitled to encash leave for 300 days whereas the available policy allowed only 180 days. He filed WPA 19022/2025 under Article 226 seeking monetary benefits. The High Court refrained from deciding the entitlement, instead remitting the matter to the competent authority as a representation, and set out detailed procedural directions and timelines for decision and payment.
Procedural Innovations
- First instance in this Bench: conversion of a pending writ petition into a deemed representation with defined procedural and timeline safeguards.
- Introduction of standardized timelines for notice (7 days), decision (8 weeks), communication (1 week), compliance (4 weeks), and payment (6 weeks).
- Direction that administrative authorities must implement favorable orders without further delay.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms established practice of remitting writ petitions as representations under Article 226.