WP.ST/55/2026 of AMIT KUMAR DAS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Ct. No.4 D/L 18.03.2026 (Naba) 01 W.P.S.T. 55 of 2026 Sri Amit Kumar Das Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Malay Bhattacharyya, Mr. Pradip Paul ...for the Petitioner Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, ld. A.G.P., Mr. Pinaki Dhole ...for the State 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant/writ petitioner and the learned A.G.P. 3. The writ petitioner is an employee of the State Government working on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Additional District Sub- Registrar, Pingla at Paschim Medinipur. He has approached the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) by way of an Original Application bearing O.A. No. 516 of 2025 seeking the relief in the form of a direction upon the respondent authorities to transfer him to a suitable post close to his place of residence at Midnapur town. The petitioner sought a direction of the Tribunal for consideration of his representation dated 24.01.2024 and 01.08.2025. The O.A. was filed in August, 2025. 2 4. Since September, 2025, the Tribunal is non- functional for want of any member. Claiming that the petitioner has been left remediless, he approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 5. We, therefore, proceeded to consider the petitioner’s claim. 6. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner has submitted that having regard to his medical condition and the condition of his mother, the authorities should have considered his posting nearby to his residence. In support of the medical condition requiring consideration, he relied upon a prescription dated 20.08.2019, which apart from being nearly seven years old, does not manifest any severe physical disability or condition requiring any special consideration. The medical papers of the mother annexed with the O.A. includes the treatment papers issued by Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute from which it appears that she underwent a surgery as far back as in April, 2023. No contemporaneous document is placed on record to support the claim made by the writ petitioner as no such document has been shown to us. 3 7. The next limb of the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that others have been transferred on 19.12.2025. 8. The substantial grievance regarding discrimination is raised by the learned advocate, which we find devoid of any substance. The transfer order dated 19.12.2025 relied upon, does not disclose the transfer being made based on any special consideration, as is sought by the present writ petitioner. 9. No provision is shown by the learned advocate for the petitioner based on which the petitioner can claim any right of transfer to an office close to his place of residence, in the facts and circumstances taken note of above. 10. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that his office head has also issued a recommendation for acceding to his request for transfer to a place close to his residence. 11. No provision is shown based on which such recommendation can vest a right in the petitioner to claim the benefit of such a recommendation. Such recommendation also in our view does not support the petitioner’s claim. 12. We find no merit in the writ petition. 13. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 4 14. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, pendency of the O.A. for the same relief would be an exercise in futility. O.A. No. 516 of 2025 pending before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal also stands disposed of. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)