Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29308 (CAL)

NELANUTHALA MARUTI PRASAD v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

WPA/15824/2026 · 2026-07-22

Reetobroto Kumar Mitra

Special Leave Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

31 22.07. 2026 Ct. No. 18 Ab IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE. WPA 15824 of 2026 Nelanuthala Maruti Prasad Vs. Union of India and another. --------------- Mr. Hemanta Kumar Das, Mr. Ravi Kumar Shah. … for the petitioner. Mr. Sukanta Chakrabarty, Mr. Goutam Dinda. … for the Union of India. Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad. … for the respondent no. 2. 1. The affidavit of service filed today is taken on record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved that his application for retiral benefits has not been considered inconsonance with the prevalent laws, notifications and memorandums guiding his case. The order has been passed, according to the petitioner, in complete violation of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in The Employees Provident Fund Organisation and another etc. vs. Sunil Kumar and others etc., passed in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 8658/8659 of 2019 dated November 4, 2022. 3. On bare perusal of the order dated March 31, 2025 clearly reveals that there is a discrepancy in the order as the authorities have taken a contradictory stand in various paragraphs in the order. 2 4. Mr. Prasad, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 2, relies on the instruction given to him on July 17, 2026. From the instruction it appears that the authorities have indeed found a discrepancy on account whereof the order of March 31, 2025 cannot be sustained. The instruction is kept on record. 5. In view thereof, the order of March 31, 2025 is set aside. 6. I direct the concerned Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner of the Regional Office to consider the matter afresh without in any manner being guided by the observations made in the order of March 31, 2025. 7. The entire exercise should be completed by August 31, 2026 and the resultant order will be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter. 8. With the afore-stated directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) 3