Calcutta High Court
WP.CT/260/2025 of ASHIM KUMAR SAHA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. on 28 September 2026
Item No.34 Ct. No. 1 KS IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WP.CT 260 of 2025 Ashim Kumar Saha Versus Union of India & Ors. Appearance: Mr. Mahadeb Ghosh Mr. Arun Kr. Paul Mr. Pritam Ghosh …..Advocate for Petitioner Mr.
ORDER SHEET
WBCHCA0579052025
Item No.34
Ct. No. 1
KS
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
WP.CT 260 of 2025
Ashim Kumar Saha
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
Appearance:
Mr. Mahadeb Ghosh
Mr. Arun Kr. Paul
Mr. Pritam Ghosh
…..Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri
Mr. T. P. Acharya
…..Advocate for Respondents
CORAM: RAVINDRA VITHALRAO GHUGE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
OM NARAYAN RAI J.
Date: 28.09.2026
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.
Order
(Per Court)
1. The Petitioner brings a dispute before this Court, which pertains to his inter-se employer-employee relationship.
2. By an order dated 14.09.2026, this Court had recorded that the question is as to whether the Petitioner rendered service between January 19, 2015 to September 22, 2015 at Andul or elsewhere.
3. The Petitioner submits that he was working during the afore-stated period of more than eight months. The Employer submits that he was not working during that period and he had not earned his salary.
4. Such disputed issues can be gone into either, in a recovery suit wherein the Petitioner can lead oral and documentary evidence and prove that he had worked for that period, or the Employer may issue a notice to the Petitioner calling upon him to tender all the relevant documents to indicate whether he was working during that period and pass an appropriate order.
5. Learned advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Civil Court will take time to decide this issue.
6. In view of the above, this Petition is dismissed.
7. At this juncture, learned advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner will file a recovery suit before the Civil Court and prove that he had worked with that period and seek payment of wages with interest.
8. In view of the above statement, if the Petitioner prefers such a civil suit, all contentions of the Petitioner and the Respondent are kept open and the dismissal of this Petition would not come in way of the Petitioner. (OM NARAYAN RAI , J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) Chief Justice