ARDHENDU SEKHAR KHANRA Vs. DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CHEMICAL LABORATORY & ANR
LAWS(CAL)-2017-6-119
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 23,2017

Ardhendu Sekhar Khanra Appellant
VERSUS
Director, National Chemical Laboratory And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. - (1.) The subject matter of challenge in the present appeal is an order dated 6th January, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 5763 (W) of 2015 by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner/appellant herein praying for directions upon the respondents to release all service benefits and to pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement, was dismissed.
(2.) The appellant preferred the writ petition stating, inter alia, that the petitioner/appellant joined the post of Junior Scientific Assistant on 30th June, 1971 in National Chemical Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as NCL) which is one of the laboratories under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (hereinafter referred to as CSIR). The appellant was issued an order of suspension on 27th January, 1982 and after an enquiry, punishment of removal from service was imposed on 16th/17th August, 1982. The statutory appeal preferred against the same was dismissed by an order dated 12th March, 1983. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed OA 520 of 1987 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai which was allowed on 3rd January, 1990 setting aside the order of the appellate authority with a direction to consider the appeal afresh upon the appellate authority to rehear. In spite of repeated representations thereafter the respondents did not respond and as such an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was filed but no proper reply was furnished.
(3.) In the backdrop of the said facts averred in the writ petition, the appellant, appearing in-person, argued before the learned Single Judge that he is entitled to be compensated since the respondents have not bothered to comply with the order passed by the learned Tribunal passed in OA 520 of 1987 on 3rd January, 1990. He further argued that when the order of the appellate authority dated 12th March, 1983 was set aside by the learned Tribunal the respondents ought to have reinstated him in service and for such denial the appellant had suffered irreparable loss and injury.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.