Calcutta High Court
MAT/91/2026 of AJIT TOPPO Vs THE CHIEF ENGINEER AND OTHER on 21 September 2026
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/91/2026 Ajit Toppo Vs The Chief Engineer and other Mr. N. A . Khan … for the appellant September 21, 2026 [SR] Item No.22 1. An issue regarding the petitioner’s date of birth was raised in the writ proceeding. The
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]
***
MAT/91/2026
Ajit Toppo
Vs
The Chief Engineer and other
Mr. N. A. Khan
… for the appellant
September 21, 2026
[SR]
Item No.22
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. An issue regarding the petitioner’s date of birth was raised in the writ proceeding. The petitioner claimed a discrepancy in the date of birth whereby and whereunder he was made to stop working on attaining the age of superannuation prior to the due date.
2. The learned Single Bench found the writ petition to be belated; as the dispute regarding correction of the date of birth was raised by the petitioner post-retirement
3. The order of the writ court is dated 31.07.2026.
4. Today when the matter was taken up, we are informed by the learned advocate for the petitioner/appellant that the writ petitioner is in receipt of one communication dated 19.08.2026 issued by the Office of the Superintending Engineer bearing Memo F .No.10-58/SE/SVPCC/ES-III/2025/1284.
5. He submits that from a plain reading of the communication the alleged mistake/discrepancy in the date of birth stands vindicated.
6. The learned advocate has handed over a copy of the communication dated 19.08.2026 to the Court which may be kept on record. We have gone through the communication dated 19.08.2026 on which the petitioner proposes to rely.
7. The letter, however, is a subsequent development which was not existing at the time of disposal of the WPA/388/2026 on 31.07.2026.
8. Under such circumstances, we leave it to the petitioner avail the remedy based on the communication dated 19.08.2026 which was neither considered; nor was part of the writ petition arising out of the WPA/388/2026. The petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy, in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
( Madhuresh Prasad, J. )
( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )