Calcutta High Court
WPA/10072/2026 of SUBHOSHRI MITRA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 29 September 2026
Court No.24 SD IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION WPA 10072 of 2026 Subhoshri Mitra Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sobhan Majumdar Ms. Koyel Bag … for the Petitioner. Mr. Indrajit Roy Chowdhury Ms. Mary Dutta Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharya …
S/L 26
29.09.2026
Court No.24
SD
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
WPA 10072 of 2026
Subhoshri Mitra
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sobhan Majumdar
Ms. Koyel Bag
… for the Petitioner.
Mr. Indrajit Roy Chowdhury
Ms. Mary Dutta
Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharya
… for the State.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the records.
2. The petitioner prays for grant of full house rent allowance (HRA) in her favour as her spouse was working far away and both the parties were residing separately for attending their official duties.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner received part HRA but did not receive full HRA on the ground that her husband received HRA from his employer.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner relies on the Memorandum No. 955-SE(LAW)/SL/5S-1221/09 dated 27th July, 2011 in support of the submission that she would be entitled to receive full HRA as the distance between the place of work of the petitioner and her spouse was not commutable on daily basis by using regular means of transport for which the parties were compelled to reside separately.
5. Specific case made out by the petitioner is that the distance between the place of work of the petitioner and her husband was more than 50 Kms and her husband worked in a different district. The petitioner and her spouse had to live separately because of the long distance between their places of work.
6. The petitioner and her husband resided at far off places and performed their duties regularly. The petitioner prays for grant of full HRA. A legal representation filed on her behalf before the school is alleged to be kept pending.
7. As per the Memo No.955-SE(LAW)/SL/5S- dated 27th July, mentioned hereinabove, the school authority is required to forward the representation filed by the petitioner to the concerned DI of Schools for taking a decision in the matter.
8. On a perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition no proof of service of the letter dated August 17, 2023 upon the school authority is found.
9. The petitioner is, hereby, granted leave to forward the representation to the school for onward transmission to the DI of Schools to take a decision as regards her prayer for grant of full HRA in terms of Memo No. 955-SE(LAW)/SL/5S-1221/09 dated 27th July, 2011.
10. An opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the petitioner for production of all documents in support of the statement that her husband resided and worked at a place which was not commutable on regular basis from the place of work of the petitioner.
11. If the prayer of the petitioner is accepted by the authority, then steps shall be taken for releasing full HRA for the period the petitioner and her spouse resided separately for attending their official duties.
12. Steps shall be taken in the matter at the earliest but positively within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of.
14. Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
15. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)