Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

(Anil Kumar Basu & Ors vs The Steel Authority on 13 September, 2019

                                     1



     7
13.09.2019
    rrc
                                   W.P.C.T. 65 of 2019
                                          with
                                   C.A.N. 8117 of 2019
                              (Application for addition of party)
                 (Anil Kumar Basu & Ors. Vs. The Steel Authority
                                of India & Ors.)

                Mr. Dilip Kumar Samanta
                Mr. Ashis Kumar Paul
                Ms. Moumita Karmakar
                                     .....For the petitioners

                Mr. Narayan Chandra Bhattacharya
                Mr. Amitava Roy
                                    .....For the respondents

C.A.N. 8117 of 2109 is an application for addition of party at the instance of 14 widows. The respective husbands of the applicants 1 to 14 were co-applicants in O.A. 1006 of 2015 which was presented before the Central Administrative Tribunal by 141 original applicants.

It is not in dispute that the husbands of the applicants had breathed their last during the pendency of the original application before the tribunal, yet, no step was taken for substitution.

Insofar as the husbands of the applicants are concerned, the original application must be held to have abated. We, therefore, see no reason to allow the present application for addition of party. The same stands dismissed.

This order shall, however, not prevent them to apply afresh, in accordance with law.

Office Office is directed to delete the names of the deceased original applicants from the cause title of this writ petition. Looking at the order dated 3rd May, 2014 passed by the tribunal while disposing of O.A. 1006 of 2015, we find that the claim of the original applicants did not succeed allegedly on the ground that there was absence of policy decision by laws or regulations conferring any benefit on them. Since no relief was granted, there is no question of passing any interim order. However, the writ petition is admitted.

Let affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition be filed by six weeks after the Puja Vacation; reply thereto, if any, may be filed four weeks after the X-Mas Vacation. The writ petition shall be treated as ready for hearing on expiry of the period fixed above for exchange of affidavits and thereafter the parties shall be at liberty to mention it for consideration before the appropriate bench. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) (Dipankar Datta, J.)