NABAKUMAR PAYRA SWAPAN KUMAR PAL vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. — WP.ST/174/2024

Case under West Bengal Administrative Tribunal Act - 1985 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th May 2026.

CNR: WBCHCA0407662024

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

23rd August 2024

Filing Number

WP.ST/177/2024

Filing Date

14-08-2024

Registration No

WP.ST/174/2024

Registration Date

14-08-2024

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD , HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD , HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

APPOINTMENT ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

MANDAMUS SECTION

Decision Date

07th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

West Bengal Administrative Tribunal Act - 1985 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

NABAKUMAR PAYRA SWAPAN KUMAR PAL

Respondent(s)

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD , HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS

23-08-2024

NEW MOTION

07-05-2026

OLD MATTER 1

04-05-2026

OLD MATTER 1

30-04-2026

OLD MATTER 1

23-04-2026

OLD MATTER 1

Orders

07-05-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD,HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Nabakumar Payra seeking compassionate appointment following his father's death by suicide while in police service in 1998. The court held that the petitioner's claim was barred by delay and laches, as he applied 17 years after his father's death (having attained majority only 10 years after), and that a tribunal's interim direction to reconsider cannot resuscitate an otherwise stale claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Nabakumar Payra seeking compassionate appointment following his father's death by suicide while in police service in 1998. The court held that the petitioner's claim was barred by delay and laches, as he applied 17 years after his father's death (having attained majority only 10 years after), and that a tribunal's interim direction to reconsider cannot resuscitate an otherwise stale claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case