BALAHARI BHOWMICK Vs. STATE OF W.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions are taken up together as the point as to whether the writ petitions should be dismissed on the ground of gross delay and latches is involved therein.

(2.) For convenience sake, the facts of one of the writ petitions is elaborately and in details, are narrated hereinbelow for arriving at the decision on the point as indicated above. The reasons which occasioned the delay are identical and verbatim reproduction in all the writ petitions. The facts of writ petition in W.P. 24754 (W) of 2010 are narrated hereinbelow. The petitioner has challenged the pensionary payment order being Memo No. 3831/P dated February 16, 2002 issued by the office of the Director of Pension Provident Fund and Group Insurance deducting a sum of Rs. 70,362.00 as overdrawal, in this writ petition.

(3.) Although , the respondents were permitted to file the affidavit-inopposition, but no affidavit-in-opposition is filed and the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent proceeded to argue the matter on the averments made in the writ petition as according to him even on the basis of the facts stated in the writ petition, the petitioner is not entitle to the relief claimed therein.