18.09.2026 Item No14 Ct. No. 30 Aloke WPA 11788 of 2026 Monoranjan Roy Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. with WPA 21756 of 2019 (File not here) Piyali Nandi & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Biswajit Manna Mr. Victor Chatterjee for the petitioner Mr. Suvadip Bhattacharyya Mr. Balaram Patra … for the respondent nos. 5 to 11 Mr. D.N. Ray, ld. G.P. Ms. Soma Chakraborty Mr. Dip Jyoti Chakraborty Mr. Kaustav Seal … for the State 1. As directed the Controlling Authority is present along with the report and also all the relevant documents which includes the order of the Controlling Authority and also the Certificate issued by the Controlling Authority. Copy served upon the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. On perusal of the order of the Controlling Authority, it appears that the establishment before the authority being M/s Lycee School, which is headed by the petitioner herein, was duly represented and was also heard and their submission was duly considered by the authority. As such, the submission of the 2 learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not personally present is not relevant considering the representation as noted in the order of the Controlling Authority. 3. Vide the order dated 5th December, 2018, the Controlling Authority passed an order against the establishment/school regarding the payment of gratuity to the private respondent. A certificate was issued to the Certificate Officer wherein the Controlling Authority had issued a Certificate to proceed against the establishment against whom the order was passed. 4. From the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner which includes an order dated 02.09.2026, it appears that the Certificate Officer is proceeding against the personal property of the petitioner herein, on holding that the writ petitioner as the certificate-debtor. 5. It appears that the Certificate Officer is proceeding against the petitioner in his personal capacity, when there was no such certificate issued stating that the petitioner is the certificate-debtor in his personal capacity. 6. It is the establishment M/s. Lycee School who was the employer being represented before the Controlling Authority and the order was passed against the establishment/school and the 3 certificate was also issued against M/s. Lycee School as the employer. 7. Considering the said facts, this Court finds that the order dated 02.09.2026 passed by the Certificate Officer proceeding against the petitioner Monoranjan Roy in personal capacity being not in accordance with law is hereby set aside. 8. The Certificate Officer in the present case is at liberty to proceed against the certificate-debtor which is M/s Lycee School and unless and until the properties of the certificate-debtor M/s Lycee School are exhausted in such compliance of Certificate issued, the Certificate Officer cannot proceed against the personal property of the office bearers. 9. The writ application is disposed of. 10. Connected application, if any, stands disposed of. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 12. Personal appearance of the Controlling Authority is dispensed with. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)