Calcutta High Court
WPA/15900/2024 of RAM CHANDRA ROY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 8 September 2026
2026 Ct. No. 18 Ab IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE. WPA 15900 of 2024 Ram Chandra Roy Vs. The State of West Bengal and others. --------------- Mr. Parvej Anam. … for the petitioner. Mr. Kushi Prasun Chatterjee, Mr. Monojit Chakraborti. …
08.09.
Ct. No. 18
Ab
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE.
WPA 15900 of 2024
Ram Chandra Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and others.
---------------
Mr. Parvej Anam.
… for the petitioner.
Mr. Kushi Prasun Chatterjee,
Mr. Monojit Chakraborti.
… for the State.
Ms. Deblina Chattaraj,
Ms. Poulami Chattopadhyay.
… for the WBTC.
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 affidavit of service filed today is taken on record.
2. The petitioner was an employee of the Calcutta Tramways Company
Limited, presently known as West Bengal Transport Corporation Limited.
3. The petitioner had retired from service sometime on July 31, 2015 and had received his retiral benefits on November 19, 2015. The petitioner accepted such amounts without any protest and/or demur and failed to approach any Forum claiming interest. The petitioner had approached this Court only in 2024 after the lapse of eight years and eight months to claim interest for the period afore-stated. This claim for payment of interest after the lapse of eight years cannot be entertained at this stage.
4. The petitioner cannot be permitted to approach this Court at such belated stage, seeking interest on account of payment, which has been received by him without any protest and/or demur. The base minimum period to approach the Court should align with the timelines for limitation of a monetory claim. This is clearly beyond the period of three years and cannot be entertained.
5. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
6. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
7. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)