SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

‐ vs ‐ on 17 June, 2019


W.P. No.15585 (W) of 2018

Rupchand Baskey
The State of West Bengal Ors.

Mr. Robiul Islam,
Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra … For the petitioner.

Mr. Saikat Banerjee,
Mr. Kamal Mishra,
Mr. Tamal Taru Panda … For respondent Nos.4 5.

Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya,
Mr. Benazir Ahmed …. For the State.

Leave is given to the learned Advocate‐on‐Record of the petitioner to add

the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, 77/2, Park Street, Kolkata‐700016

as a party‐respondent No.6 in the cause‐title of this writ petition here and now.

The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher of Majilapur Birendra Vidyapith, a

recognised Higher Secondary School. He was implicated in a criminal case being

Datan Police Station Case No.297/2017 dated September 27, 2017 under Sections

498A/Section304B/Section120B/Section34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 / Section4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. The petitioner has been released on bail on November 27, 2017.

It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that after

being released on bail, the petitioner reported for duty on November 27, 2017 and

he continued to his duty up to January 5, 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner was not

allowed to join. Finally, the petitioner was allowed to join the School in April 2019.

The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that

the petitioner is entitled to salary for the period from November 2017 to March


It is submitted on behalf of the School Authorities that the petitioner

remained absent from December 1, 2017 to October 8, 2018 without any intimation

to the School Authorities. It is further submitted on behalf of the School Authorities

that the petitioner had exhausted all the leaves available to him and the period

should be considered as leave without pay.

It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State

respondent that the allegations of the petitioner may not be totally correct in view

of the fact that the petitioner had written a letter to the Administrator of the School

on January 22, 2018, pursuant to a letter of the Teacher‐in‐Charge of the concerned

School dated January 6, 2018 seeking clarification for the long absence of the

petitioner. By the said letter the petitioner informed the authorities that he was

unwell for certain period and could not join the School and he would resume his

duty as and when he would recover.

Since disputed questions of facts are involved in this writ petition, this writ

petition needs to be heard on affidavits.


Let affidavit‐in‐opposition to the writ petition be filed within four weeks

from date and reply thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.

Liberty is given to the parties to mention the matter for hearing before the

appropriate Bench after expiry of the aforesaid period specified for filing affidavits.

( Shampa Sarkar, J. )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation