IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Appellate Side 16.07.2026 S/L No. 05 Ct. No. 4 (Naba) W.P.S.T. 264 of 2025 Dipak Mitra Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Supratick Syamal, Ms. Arkarupa Roy ...for the Petitioner Ms. Chandreyi Alam, ld. A.G.P., Ms. Runu Mukherjee ...for the State 1. The petitioner filed an Original Application before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’), which thereafter became non- functional for want of any member, leaving the petitioner remediless. 2. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rojer Mathew Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2020) 6 SCC 1, to submit that the petitioner cannot be left remediless and that in the circumstance, the Writ Court should exercise its extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction to consider the petitioner’s pending claim. 3. We, thus, proceeded to take up the matter. 4. The affidavit-in-opposition was also filed by the State and reply by the petitioner. 2 5. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant/writ petitioner and the learned A.G.P. 6. Having joined as a Work-charged Khalasi, the petitioner was subsequently regularised in the year 1991. Shorn off unnecessary detail, the claim pending in the Original Application is the petitioner’s request for a voluntary retirement on the ground of his physical incapacity. 7. From the record, it is obvious that the Executive Engineer of the Damodar Canal Division, Purba Bardhaman and the Superintending Engineer of the Damodar Irrigation Circle, both recommended acceptance of the petitioner’s request for voluntary retirement vide their letters dated 13.01.2025 and 15.01.2025, respectively. 8. There is no dispute that the petitioner is having 85% handicap, since his left leg was amputated, as a result of some accidental injury. Despite such facts not in dispute, also there being no dispute regarding the petitioner’s eligibility in terms of the requisite qualifying service/age for availing a benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (V.R.S.), the authorities communicated rejection of such claim by an order dated 17.12.2024, issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in the Irrigation & Waterways Department. 3 9. We would observe here that the facts as taken note of above, leave no dispute or doubt as regards admissibility of the petitioner’s claim for being allowed V.R.S. The same was duly recommended by the concerned authorities. The level of handicap of 85% is also not in dispute. 10. Under the circumstances, the authorities were obliged to allow the petitioner’s claim for V.R.S., as he otherwise also fulfilled the requisites in terms of length of service and age etc. 11. We have gone through the order, which is devoid of any reason in support of the rejection. A mere reference has been made to some decision of the Finance Department directing for rejection of the petitioner’s claim for V.R.S. The order dated 17.12.2024, as it is, is unsustainable, as being devoid of any reasons in support of the decision. The order shows a total lack of consideration by the authorities. Such non-consideration of the petitioner’s claim and rejection by a cryptic order, is to be viewed keeping in background the admitted position emerging from the record, noted above that the petitioner is suffering 85% handicap. 12. We, therefore, find rejection of the petitioner’s claim by the order dated 17.12.2024, to be unsustainable. 4 13. The order dated 17.12.2024, issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in the Irrigation & Waterways Department is hereby quashed. 14. Under such a circumstance, where an administrative authority fails or refuses to discharge his obligations, it is an appropriate occasion for the Writ Court to issue a positive direction. 15. The authorities are directed to take steps for ensuring that the petitioner is granted the benefit of V.R.S., after a scrutiny of any requisite formalities, which may be required to be completed by the petitioner; and ensuring that such formalities are completed. As a result of the V.R.S., the petitioner would be entitled to his consequential benefits. The entire exercise must be completed within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 16. We allow the Writ Petition in these terms. The O.A. No. 14 of 2025, pending before the Tribunal is accordingly disposed of. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)