Calcutta High Court
WPA/25019/2026 of RAMHARI MAITY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 23 September 2026
AD/20/18 266312 NANDY (DISMISSED) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA/25019/2026 RAMHARI MAITY VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Ms. Pampa Dey (Dhabal), Advocate Mr. Biswarup Chatterjee, Advocate ……for the Petitioner Mr. Pulakesh
AD/20/18
266312
NANDY
(DISMISSED)
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
WPA/25019/2026
RAMHARI MAITY
VS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Ms. Pampa Dey (Dhabal), Advocate
Mr. Biswarup Chatterjee, Advocate
……for the Petitioner
Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee, Advocate
Mr. Subit Majumdar, Advocate
……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. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking regularization of his service which he allegedly renders in the Pathar Pratima Development Block.
2. There is absolutely no evidence to show that he is engaged contractually or is a casual employee or is rendering any service on the basis of any arrangement or agreement with the authorities.
3. A document issued by the Block Development Officer of the Pathar Pratima Development Block, Ramganga, South 24 Parganas, sometime in 2016, memorandum bearing no. 3843 and another document from 2015, are extremely suspicious.
4. There is no official document-on-record to show that the petitioner has been in continuous employment of the respondent authorities.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner has been unable to establish any right or even the fact that he has rendered continuous P a g e | 2
service for a period of time which will enable the petitioner to even be considered for regularization.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)