Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Tapan Kumar Maitra vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 August, 2015
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
05.08.2015
S.L.-17(KB)
W.P. 17309 (W) of 2015
Dr. Tapan Kumar Maitra
versus
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Himadri Barua
Mr. Mohit Chatterjee
Mr. Arun Roy
... For the petitioner.
Mr. Shyamal Sanyal
Mr. Jyoti Prakash Chatterjee
... For the State respondents.
Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty Ms. Era Ghose ... For the Burdwan University.
Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on record.
This writ application has been preferred challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim towards release of advance increments including the advances towards Ph.D. degree acquired by the petitioner.
Mr. Barua, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed in the post of lecturer at Ananda 2 Mohan College (hereinafter referred to as the said college) on 25th April, 1988 and he obtained the Ph.D. degree in the year 1993 but the grant of two increments pertaining to the Ph.D. degree as per Government Order dated 4th February, 1999 and two advance increments with effect from 27th July, 1998 as per Government Order dated 26th November, 2001 to the petitioner were withheld without any reason.
He further submits that one Tapan Kumar Ghosh and others, who are similarly situated with the petitioner, preferred a writ application challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents to grant the increments, as prayed for by the petitioner herein and the Court directed grant of such benefits by an order dated 11th April, 2012 and the said order was implemented subsequent to preference of a contempt application.
He further submits that similar benefits should also be extended to the petitioner but the respondents have illegally withheld the same though a notice was issued by the petitioner through his learned advocate on 23rd December, 2014.
3
Ms. Ghose, learned advocate appearing for the university submits that in the writ application no allegation has been levelled against the university.
Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the matter involves disputed questions of fact and that as such no interference is called for.
Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon considering the materials on record I am of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the writ application pending and the same needs to be relegated to the appropriate authority for consideration of the petitioner's claim.
Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent no.4 to consider the representation dated 23rd December, 2014 issued on behalf of the petitioner, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the college authorities and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and to communicate the same to the petitioner.
The above exercise shall be completed by the respondent no.4 within a period of eight weeks from the 4 date of communication of this order, along with a copy of the writ application.
Needless to observe, in the event the petitioner's claim deserves acceptance, necessary follow up steps shall be taken by all the respondents, without any further delay.
With the above observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty,J.)