23.07.2026 19 sdas WPA 20106 of 2012 Uttam Kumar Khan Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Indranil Chakraborti Ms. Molly Saha .….. for the petitioner Mr. D. N. Ray, learned G.P. Mr. Guddu Singh Mr. Sourav Haldar ……for the respondent no. 1 Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aninda Bhattacharya ……. for the WBSWC 1. Let affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court, be kept on record. 2. This matter has been restored after being dismissed for default. 3. Mr. Chakraborti, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the cost has already been paid. His limited grievance now is that some part and portion of his retiral benefits have yet not been paid by the respondent authorities. Certain representations, by way of letters, have been made by the petitioner, which the respondent authorities may or may not have considered, since the requisite documents of such an old matter could not be traced by the respondent authorities. 2 4. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation with all requisite documents by August 20, 2026 with the respondent no. 2. 5. Respondent no. 2 shall consider and dispose of the fresh application to be made by the petitioner by September 30, 2026 by passing a reasoned order thereof. 6. With the aforestated direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 7. Since no affidavit has been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied. 8. There will be no order as to costs.

9. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon usual undertakings. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)

23.07.2026 19 sdas WPA 20106 of 2012 Uttam Kumar Khan Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Indranil Chakraborti Ms. Molly Saha .….. for the petitioner Mr. D. N. Ray, learned G.P. Mr. Guddu Singh Mr. Sourav Haldar ……for the respondent no. 1 Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aninda Bhattacharya ……. for the WBSWC 1. Let affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court, be kept on record. 2. This matter has been restored after being dismissed for default. 3. Mr. Chakraborti, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the cost has already been paid. His limited grievance now is that some part and portion of his retiral benefits have yet not been paid by the respondent authorities. Certain representations, by way of letters, have been made by the petitioner, which the respondent authorities may or may not have considered, since the requisite documents of such an old matter could not be traced by the respondent authorities. 2 4. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation with all requisite documents by August 20, 2026 with the respondent no. 2. 5. Respondent no. 2 shall consider and dispose of the fresh application to be made by the petitioner by September 30, 2026 by passing a reasoned order thereof. 6. With the aforestated direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 7. Since no affidavit has been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied. 8. There will be no order as to costs.

9. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon usual undertakings. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)