ABDUL RASHID Vs. CALCUTTA DOCK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated September 20, 2011 is seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay him the benefits mentioned in para. 8 of the WP with interest and costs. The relevant part of para.8 of the WP is quoted below: -

(2.) The respondents have dealt with the case stated in para. 8 of the WP in para.7 of their affidavit-in-opposition dated December 1, 2011, which is quoted below: -

(3.) It is, therefore, evident that the respondents have not disputed the petitioner's claims; nor have they disputed the petitioner's case that they are paying their existing employees giving full benefits of the settlement dated January 19, 2010. The petitioner retired from service on December 1, 2009 and he was paid the benefits according to the wage settlement that was valid till December 31, 2006. The case stated in para.3 of the WP has not either been disputed by the respondents who have said that "due to acute financial crisis, the Board is not in a position to release the payment......."