Form No. J.(2) Item No.1 Pallab/KS AR(Ct.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE HEARD ON: 18.07.2025 DELIVERED ON: 18.07.2025 CORAM: THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) M.A.T. 2362 of 2023 + I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023 + CAN 2 of 2024 + CAN 3 of 2024 Debasish Mukherjee Vs. N.T.P.C. Limited & Ors. Appearance:- Mr. Debasish Mukherjee ……………. Appellant (In Person) Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv. Ms. Tannistha Bandyopadhyay …..Amicus Curiae Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumya Majumder Mr. Uttam Kr. Mandal ……………..For the N.T.P.C. Ltd. (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) 1. This intra-Court appeal filed by the writ petitioner, who is appearing in person is directed against the order dated 30th November, 2023 in W.P.A. 22944 of 2022. In the said writ petition, the appellant had challenged an order of premature retirement. The first objection raised by the appellant’s employer viz. N.T.P.C. Limited is that the appellant was last posted as Senior Manager of the Darlipali Super Thermal Power Project under the N.T.P.C. at Jharsuguda 2 2 in the State of Orissa and the challenge to the order of premature retirement will not be maintainable before this Court. 2. The learned Writ Court has heard the matter on several occasions and by order dated 27th February, 2024 directed the respondent/N.T.P.C. to produce the following two documents:- (a) Minutes of the Meeting of the Performance Management Committee (PMC) of the writ petitioner in the year 2015; (b) Minutes of the Meeting of PMC for performance of the petitioner in 2016. 3. Pursuant to such direction, the Deputy General Manager (Human Resources of N.T.P.C. Ltd.) filed an affidavit setting out various details, which may not be very germane to decide as to whether this Court would have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to an order of premature retirement. 4. In paragraph 14 of the said affidavit, which is sworn to on 19th March, 2024, it is stated that in terms of the policy applicable for premature retirement, the performance of the writ petitioner for four years i.e. 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 were taken into consideration and during each of these four years, the writ petitioner was posted at Talcher Thermal Power Station (01.01.2015 to 30.06.2016) and Darlipali Thermal Power Station (01.07.2016 to 31.12.2018) and admittedly both the projects are situated in the State of Orissa having the regional Headquarters at Bhubaneswar. 5. It is also an admitted fact that during the period 2012 to 2014, the appellant/writ petitioner was on deputation in the State of West Bengal with Damodar Valley Corporation and in no uncertain terms, the officer of the N.T.P.C. Ltd., in the said affidavit has stated that no part of the writ petitioner’s performance in D.V.C. during the year 2014 had been taken into consideration while deciding on the issue of premature retirement. 3 3 6. Further, it is stated that the decision of the premature retirement was taken at New Delhi and was communicated to the writ petitioner at Darlipali Thermal Power Station at Orissa. 7. If this is the factual position, the learned Single Bench was fully justified in not entertaining the writ petition as no part of the cause of action, which led to passing of the order of premature retirement arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Under normal circumstances, we would not have ventured to say anything more but, considering the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner, who holds the Masters Degree in Information Technology is appearing in person, we make the following observations and it is up to the appellant to take note of the same. 8. If the appraisal was done during the period when the appellant was posted in the Thermal Power Plants in the State of Orissa, this may give us a cause of action to the appellant to challenge the order of premature retirement before the Courts having jurisdiction over the subject situated in the State of Orissa or in the alternative, the appellant can maintain a challenge before the Courts having jurisdiction, where the Head Office of his employer viz. N.T.P.C. Ltd. is situated i.e. New Delhi. 9. The above is only an observation made by us and we do not make any specific direction in this regard and it is up to the appellant to take a decision as to before which forum in which State he is to agitate his grievance. 10. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Bench. 11. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed alongwith the connected applications. 12. The appellant appearing in person submitted that the order of premature retirement is in fact punitive on account of his alleged unauthorized absence 4 4 during the period when he was working within the State of West Bengal i.e. when he was in deputation with Damodar Valley Corporation. This ground, which has been urged by the appellant appearing in person touches upon the merits of the matter relating to challenge of the order of premature retirement, which has to be canvassed by the appellant before the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction over the subject-matter. 13. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter and it will be well-open to the appellant to canvass all the grounds before the appropriate forum. 14. Upon a query raised by the Court, the appellant/Amicus Curiae submitted that none of his retiral benefits pursuant to the order of premature retirement has been paid to him. 15. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the N.T.P.C. Ltd. submitted that N.T.P.C. Ltd. was always ready and willing to release the amount, but it is the appellant, who has refused to accept the same. In the event, the appellant is ready and willing to accept the same, he may approach the respondent authorities, who shall consider his prayer and disburse the appropriate amount. 16. No costs. 17. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE I agree. (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)