Calcutta High Court
WPA/3250/2026 of ANUSHREE CHANDRA Vs EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS. on 21 September 2026
AD/04/18 266312 NANDY (DISMISSED) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA/3250/2026 CAN/1/2026 ANUSHREE CHANDRA VS EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ORS. Mr. Ranojoy Chatterjee, Advocate Ms. Riya Mahanta, Advocate ……for the Petitioner Mr.
AD/04/18
266312
NANDY
(DISMISSED)
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
WPA/3250/2026
CAN/1/2026
ANUSHREE CHANDRA
VS
EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ORS.
Mr. Ranojoy Chatterjee, Advocate
Ms. Riya Mahanta, Advocate
……for the Petitioner
Mr. Tushar Sinha Mahapatra, Advocate
……for the ECL
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 is aggrieved that her name has not been included in the service book of the private respondent, her husband, an employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL), as his dependent. The petitioner seeks inclusion of her name along with those of the children as dependents of the private respondent in his service book.
2. It is fairly admitted that the petitioner is undergoing a matrimonial (divorce) case with the private respondent. It is for the private respondent to nominate his dependents to be included in his service book.
3. In fact, by a letter of September 28, 2025, the private respondent has specified that "there is a matrimonial and divorce case going on with his wife"; on account whereof he is not willing to include their names in his official service file.
4. This is a dispute in the private domain between the petitioner and the private respondent.
P a g e | 2
5. The authorities cannot be faulted for not putting the petitioner's name in the service record of the private respondent. In fact, ECL will act as per the nomination of the private respondent, its employee, and not beyond that.
6. In the circumstances as afore-stated, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
7. The connected application being CAN/1/2026 also stands disposed of.
(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)