Calcutta High Court

WPA/18094/2026 of SHYAMAL MUKHERJEE Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 22 September 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

22.09.2026 Court No.24 pg. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 18094 of 2026 Shyamal Mukherjee -versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Timir Baran Saha … For the petitioner 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on

ML-1024

22.09.2026

Court No.24

pg.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

WPA 18094 of 2026

Shyamal Mukherjee

-versus

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Timir Baran Saha

… For the petitioner

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

2. In spite of service, none appears on behalf of the respondents.

3. The petitioner prays interest on account of delayed payment of his terminal dues.

4. The petitioner retired from service on 30th November, 2014 and the Pension Payment Order was issued on 10th March, 2025. There has been delay in payment of the terminal dues because of pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner.

5. It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the criminal case against the petitioner stood disposed of by the Court in the year 2017. An appeal was preferred against the same which stood disposed of in November, 2024.

6. Ultimately the Pension Payment Order was issued in March, 2025. In the PPO it has been specifically mentioned that a court case was pending.

2

7. The petitioner filed an earlier writ petition, being WPA 22434 of 2025, praying for release of his arrear salary. The said writ petition stood disposed of on 3rd November, 2025 taking note of the fact that the District Inspector of Schools requested the Headmistress of the school to furnish the documents relating to the petitioner but the same was not acted upon by the school authority.

8. It does not appear that there has been any intentional delay or laches on the part of the respondents in delaying issuance of the PPO in favour of the petitioner. The delay was primarily because of pendency of the criminal case. The petitioner has not been able to make out a case of grant of interest in his favour.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

10. All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

11. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Amrita Sinha, J.)

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead