Calcutta High Court
Ashoke Kumar Adhikary vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 December, 2010
Author: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
Bench: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
1
2.2010
sg
W.P. No. 16518 (W) of 2010
Ashoke Kumar Adhikary
... Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
... Respondents
Mr. Arun Kumar Das, Mr. Sanjib Das .. For the Petitioner.
Let both the affidavit of services filed in Court today be kept with the record. In spite of service none appears for the Respondents.
The petitioner was an employee of the National Jute Manufactures Corporation Limited, Respondent No.3 to this writ petition for about 38 years and he had retired in the year 2005. His grievance is that till date the Respondent Authorities have not paid his retiral benefits and only a sum of Rs.53,089/- has been paid as ad-hoc arrear of pay. According to him, other employees got much more, in spite of the fact that they were juniors to the petitioner as well as their length of service was much lesser than the petitioner.
Further grievance of the petitioner is that he made several representations to the Authorities concerned, some of which have been annexed to this writ petition as Annexurees P-4, P-5 and P-6. In these representations the petitioner had given in a tabular form the amount of arrear salary which some other employees have already received.
The Respondent Authorities did not respond very favourably. Finally, the learned Advocate for the petitioner made a demand of justice to the Respondent Authorities requesting them to consider the grievance of his client and to release the arrears and allowances after rectifying the 2 incorrect calculation done previously. The learned Advocate for the petitioner informs that the respondents even then decided to sit tight over the matter and not to give any reply.
In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Respondent No.3 (Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Jute Manufactures Corporation Limited) to consider and dispose of the representations and the demand of justice within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the order. The Respondents concerned shall be at liberty to give a hearing to the petitioner if he thinks it necessary and shall pass a reasoned order dealing with all the grievances of the petitioner. Needless to mention, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to any sum which ought to have been paid earlier, the Respondent Authorities shall make the payment with interest calculated at the rate of 8% from the date it fell due to the date of actual payment.
Since the respondents have not appeared and since this matter is being disposed of without calling for any affidavit, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
If urgent certified copy of this order, duly photocopied, is applied for by the parties, the same should be given on priority basis upon compliance of all the formalities.
(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.)