Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Krishnendu Garu vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 August, 2021
Author: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Bench: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Item-7 16-08-2021 WP.CT 31 of 2021
Krishnendu Garu
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
sg Ct. 16 (Through Video Conference)
Ms. Bhaskar Chandra Manna, Adv.
...for the petitioner
Mr. Rabindranath Bag, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Saptamita Pramanick, Adv.
...for the respondents
The petitioner is the grandson of Smt. Snehabala Garu. The original applicant was Smt. Snehabala Garu. In the said application, an order was passed by the learned Tribunal on 16 th March, 2020 to the following effect:
"10. In view of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court supra, and our revelations as indicated above, we feel it appropriate in the interest of justice, to direct the respondents to undertake an identical exercise as directed by the Hon'ble High Court in WPCT 74 of 2016 and issue appropriate order in regard to the present applicants within 4 months.
Accordingly, along with the present O.A., all the O.As. cited above, that related to identically circumstanced land loosers, in regard to the same project as in this O.A. or otherwise, whose right to employment under land looser category flows from RBE 99/2010, are disposed of with identical direction. Pending M.As. in the some of the O.As. also stands disposed of. No costs."
The grandson has now filed an application for 2 consideration of his case in place of his grandmother.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to page no.23 of the petition to show that the present writ petitioner has filed an application before the Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Kharagpur Division, clearly stating that the case of the grandson of Smt. Snehalata Garu may be considered under the Land Looser Scheme instead of Kartic Chandra Garu.
In identical matters, we have extended the time for compliance of the order of the learned Tribunal dated 16th March, 2020 by two months from date. While considering the case of the grandmother of the writ petitioner in terms of the direction of the learned Tribunal as stated in paragraph 10 of the said order, the case of Krishnendu Garu may also be considered as it appears that in the original application the grandmother has referred to the writ petitioner and the application of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment was part of the record before the learned Tribunal, on the basis of which, the original application was disposed of.
With the above observation, WPCT 31 of 2021 is disposed of.
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)