IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appellate Side 24.07.2026 S/L 03 Court No. 4 (Naba) M.A.T. 2221 of 2017 With CAN 5 of 2026 Smt. Dipali Sardar & Ors. Vs. Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors. Mr. Ajay Debnath ...the Appellant Ms. Chandreyi Alam, ld. A.G.P., Ms. Runu Mukherjee ...the State/Respondent Nos.5 & 6 1. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant, who was the writ petitioner before the Writ Court, and the learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The writ petitioners approached the Writ Court for grant of pensionary benefits. They claimed in the writ petition that writ petitioner nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 were retired employees of the respondent Corporation. The petitioner no.3 also joined in the writ proceeding claiming to be a wife of a deceased employee. The Writ Court found total absence of details as regards the services as claimed by the writ petitioners. The Writ Court further found that a Division Bench of this Court had relegated other 2 similarly situated persons to remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act. On such consideration, the writ petition was not entertained. 3. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that the judgement of the Single Judge is unsustainable. There is also a judgement of a Division Bench, wherein the claim of similarly situated persons were entertained in a writ proceeding. Therefore, relegation to the Industrial Tribunal was not sustainable. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant further submits that the statements made in the writ petition are sufficient to sustain a claim for grant of pension. He further submits that earlier the Court directed for filing of affidavits and therefore, if such affidavits were filed, the status of the writ petitioners would have been revealed with reference to their service details. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellant. 6. Insofar as the issue raised regarding relegation to the Industrial Tribunal being not sustainable, we asked the learned advocate for the appellant to make out a case before this Court as regards the claim of the writ petitioner/appellant with reference to the pleadings made in the writ petition. 3 7. He drew attention of the Court towards statement in paragraph 2(a) as well as a legal notice dated 25.01.2016 annexed to the writ petition. 8. On going through the document as well as the pleading, we find no detail whatsoever in respect of any of the petitioners based on which the Court may arrive at a conclusion that they were employees of the Corporation and entitled to any pensionary benefit. 9. Insofar as the submission that after filing of an opposition, the issue would be clarified, we find no force in such submission. 10. It is a settled law that the person who approaches the Court has to make out a case and he cannot cast such burden on the defendant/respondent to make out his case. 11. Another aspect of the matter is that a writ proceeding, by now is settled, is decided on the basis of pleadings supported by documents/annexures in support of such pleadings, on affidavit. The pleadings are required to be unambiguous and with reference to details, so as to make out a case for the relief prayed for. 12. In the present case no details whatsoever is stated in the writ petition. In absence of any details, as considered above, there is no scope for this Court 4 to arrive at any conclusion regarding the facts essential for the relief prayed for. 13. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal. 14. The appeal is dismissed. 15. Pending application also stands disposed of. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)