Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side) Bankim Sardar College & Ors vs Dr. Swarupa Bandopadhyay

 
FREE EXCERPT

Kolkata:

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya

And

The Hon'ble Justice Tapash Mookherjee

M.A.T 1007 of 2014

(CAN 7987 of 2014)

With

MAT 1015 of 2014

(CAN 5863 of 2014)

Bankim Sardar College & Ors.

Versus

Dr. Swarupa Bandopadhyay

For the Appellants (in MAT 1007 of

: Mr. Kishore Dutta, Adv.

2014) & for the Respondent Nos.

:

Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Adv.

3,4 & 5 (in MAT 1015 of 2014).

For the Appellant (in Mat 1015 of 2014)

: Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya , Adv.

: Mr. Bidhan Biswas, Adv.

For the Writ Petitioner/Respondent No.1

: Mr. Arunava Ghosh, Adv.

: Mr. Md. T. M. Sidiqui, Adv.

: Mr. Azim Md. Sabir, Adv.

For the University

: Ms. Sampa Sarkar, Adv.

Heard On

: 25.08.2014

Judgment On

: 26th September, 2014.

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.

Two appeals were filed by two different groups of respondents challenging a common interim order passed by the Learned Trial Judge on 14th May, 2014 in W.P. No. 2835(W) of 2014. The appeal which was filed by the college authority was registered as M.A.T. No. 1007 of 2014. The application for stay which was filed in connection with the said appeal was registered as CAN 7987 of 2014. The other appeal was registered as MAT 1015 of 2014. The said application which was filed in connection therewith was registered as CAN 5863 of 2014. Though the subject matter of challenge in both the appeals is a common order but the grounds of challenge are different.

Since both the appeals arose out of a common order passed in one writ petition, we have heard both the appeals simultaneously and proposed to pass a common order disposing of both the appeals for avoiding conflict of decision.

As per the request made by the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties we have also decided to consider the writ petition on merit.

Let us now consider the merit of both the aforesaid appeals and the writ petition in the facts of the instant case.

The writ petitioner is an Assistant Professor in Bankim Sardar College. She along with her son met with an accident on 16th October, 2010; in which she lost her son and she became physically disabled and her disability is to the extent of 90%. Admittedly, she remained absent from 28th February, 2011 to 1st May, 2013; i.e. for a period of 708 days.

A question cropped up as to how such leave is to be adjusted. The college authority held that the writ petitioner/appellant is not entitled to get any salary during the said period as she was in unauthorised absence during the...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL