Employer Can Deduct Penal Rent From Gratuity Of Employees Who Refuse To Vacate Company Quarters: Calcutta High CourtCase: Eastern Coalfields Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 173The Calcutta High Court has held that an employer is entitled to deduct penal rent and other dues from the gratuity of a retired employee who continues to occupy...
Case: Eastern Coalfields Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 173
The Calcutta High Court has held that an employer is entitled to deduct penal rent and other dues from the gratuity of a retired employee who continues to occupy company accommodation unlawfully.
Setting aside concurrent orders passed by the Controlling and Appellate Authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) observed that permitting such conduct would encourage others to illegally retain official quarters, ultimately depriving serving employees of essential housing facilities.
Case: Santosh Sardar Vs. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 174
The Calcutta High Court has refused to grant relief to a BSF constable who was dismissed from service for having secured his appointment on the basis of forged secondary examination documents. Justice Amrita Sinha held that once fraud at the entry stage is established, the very foundation of service becomes illegal, and no amount of sympathy based on long years of service can cure the defect. The Court stressed that an employee who does not possess the minimum educational qualification cannot be retained in service simply because he has served for decades. Such retention, the judge said, would undermine discipline and demoralise the force.
Case: Aasif Mohammad @ Asif Mohammad @ Asif @ Viki Versus The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 175
The Calcutta High Court has quashed an NDPS prosecution against a Meerut resident accused of masterminding a large phensedyl trafficking operation, holding that the case against him was built solely on co-accused confessions that are “inadmissible” and unsupported by any independent material.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held that compelling the petitioner to face trial in the absence of even a shred of admissible evidence would amount to a “miscarriage of justice”.
Case: SK.SAMAD VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 176
The Calcutta High Court has overturned a 2007 conviction for kidnapping of a minor girl, holding that the prosecution failed to prove that the girl had been taken away from the “lawful guardianship” of the woman with whom she was residing as a 'maidservant.'
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, while allowing the appeal, emphasised that the prosecution's case suffered from contradictions, unreliable testimony, and an entirely unstable foundation regarding who the lawful guardian actually was. The Court observed that the trial court had already acquitted the accused of the graver charge under Section 373 IPC, and even the remaining conviction under Section 363 could not be sustained.
Case: IDEL SK @ GABA SK AND ANOTHER -VS- STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 177
The Calcutta High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against two timber merchants accused of trespass, theft of nearly one thousand trees and caste-based abuse of a Santhal woman, holding that the allegations disclose prima facie offences under both the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and must proceed to trial.
Justice Uday Kumar ruled that the sheer scale of the alleged tree-felling operation—carried out over three days with labourers, machinery and transport vehicles—makes the location “a place within public view” for the purposes of the SC/ST Act.
Case: SARANJIT KAUR (HURA) -versus- INDER SINGH HURA
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 178
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya dismissed an appeal filed by the wife challenging the husband's divorce decree. The Trial Court had granted a divorce on the ground of cruelty, while also taking note of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
The Division Bench upheld these findings after examining the evidence led by both sides, the wife's conduct before and after the institution of the suit, the criminal proceedings initiated by her, and the prolonged separation of nearly 17 years.
Case: RAMLAL -VS- STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 179
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the NDPS proceedings against a petitioner who was implicated five years after a 2012 Charas seizure, holding that the prosecution sought to proceed solely on the strength of inadmissible Section 67 NDPS Act statements.
Justice Uday Kumar noted at the outset that after Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, confessions recorded by investigating officers under Section 67 have no evidentiary value and cannot form the foundation of prosecution. Once these statements were excluded from consideration, the case, the Court said, was left without “a single legally admissible material” connecting the petitioner to the alleged narcotics transaction.
Case: M/s. Sewak Enterprise Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 180
The Calcutta High Court on March 30, 2026, set aside a show-cause notice and a subsequent termination order issued against M/s Sewak Enterprises, holding that the authorities acted arbitrarily and in complete disregard of documents already submitted by the petitioner.
Justice Krishna Rao observed that the impugned actions were issued “without any application of mind,” as the records clearly demonstrated that the vehicle's ownership transfer and the PESO licence transfer had been completed within the four-month deadline stipulated in the tender conditions, and the relevant documents had been emailed to the authorities well before the issuance of the show-cause notice.
Case: Md. Farhad Zaman Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal)181
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the dismissal of BSF personnel Md. Farhad Zaman, accused of accepting bribes to secure “fit” medical certificates for job aspirants appearing in the 2018 Constable (GD) recruitment in CAPFs, NIA, SSF and Assam Rifles.
Justice Amrita Sinha dismissed the writ petition filed by the dismissed BSF constable and observed that overwhelming material existed to prima facie indicate his involvement in a conspiracy involving doctors and civilians.
Case: MRIGESH KANTI NATH & ORS. VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 182
“To allow such proceedings to continue would be a sheer abuse of the process of the court,” the Calcutta High Court observed while quashing criminal proceedings under inter alia Sections 498A IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against a 67-year-old father-in-law and 61-year-old mother-in-law.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das allowed a criminal revision petition filed by Mrigesh Kanti Nath and another, holding that the allegations made by the complainant-wife were general, non-specific, uncorroborated and directly inconsistent with the medical incapacity of the in-laws, who had undergone major surgeries during the period of the alleged assaults.
Case: GUNADHAR KOLEY vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 183
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of two brothers, Naba Kumar Koley and Gunadhar Koley, who had been found guilty under Sections 307 and 324 of the IPC for allegedly assaulting their sibling Balai Koley over a dispute relating to Til plants.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), delivering judgment on April 8, 2026, held that the prosecution's case was riddled with “glaring inconsistencies” and suffered from a completely unreliable evidentiary foundation. The Court observed that the entire episode arose from a long-standing and deeply strained family relationship, marked by not only property disputes but also political rivalries and marital discord within the household, which had split the family into two hostile groups long before the incident.
Case: Uma Sengupta & Ors v/s. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 184
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday reiterated that the Right to Information is a fundamental right flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and directed the State Public Information Officer of the West Bengal Information Commission to dispose of a pending RTI request within 15 days.
Justice Rai Chattopadhyay was hearing a petition challenging the non-supply of information sought in 2018 and the subsequent handling of the RTI proceedings by the State Information Commission.
Case Name : Smt. Ranu Chatterjee & ors. vs. State of West Bengal & ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 185
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty held that the brother of a deceased government teacher does not qualify as “family” under Clause 5(s)(2) of the Pension Scheme, 1981, and he cannot claim family pension arrears, especially when the original beneficiary (mother) never claimed the benefit during her lifetime.
Case: Rupa Banerjee Nee Samjpati v. The Election Commission of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 186
The Calcutta High Court on Friday sharply criticised the Election Commission of India (ECI) for appointing Assistant Professors and Associate Professors from government colleges as Presiding Officers for the upcoming West Bengal Assembly Elections without recording any “unavoidable circumstances” as mandated under earlier Commission instructions.
Justice Krishna Rao, while allowing a writ petition filed by a society representing college teachers, held that the ECI had acted in violation of its own circular dated February 16/17, 2010, which stated that Group A equivalent senior officers, including university and college teaching staff, should not ordinarily be deployed for polling duties inside polling stations unless specific reasons were recorded in writing by the District Election Officer.
Case Title: Sangita Raha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 187
The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal government to issue an eligibility certificate under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 to a married couple who crossed the statutory age limit after initiating fertility treatment, holding that they should not be denied parenthood after already undergoing the Assisted Reproductive Technology process and successfully cryopreserving embryos.
Case Title: The State of West Bengal v. Gopal Das
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 188
The Calcutta High Court has acquitted a man who had been sentenced to death for allegedly murdering his wife and concealing her body in a septic tank, holding that the prosecution utterly failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances and that the trial court had proceeded with a “pre-determined mind” by attempting to make the facts fit the prosecution's story.
Case Name : Sk. Golam Kibria Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 189
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held that an employee is not entitled to pension under the West Bengal Municipal (Employees' Death cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 2003 if the municipality had already adopted the Model Pension Rules (1984), and the employee failed to exercise the mandatory option to come under the pension scheme.
Case: Md Danish Farooqi v Election Commission of India
Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Cal) 190
The Calcutta High Court has stayed a controversial communication issued from the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, which allegedly identified around 800 persons as “trouble-makers” and called for action against them ahead of the Assembly elections, observing prima facie that the Election Commission cannot issue such “blanket direction” when election offences are already governed by statute.
Case: Overseas Scrap Trading Corporation vs. Howrah Municipal Corporation and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 191
The Calcutta High Court has held that the Howrah Municipal Corporation (HMC) cannot indefinitely withhold execution of sale deeds in favour of a successful auction purchaser on the pretext of pending State approval, when the governing statute itself authorises the Corporation to dispose of its property.
Justice Shampa Sarkar directed the State Government to grant the necessary approval within eight weeks and ordered HMC to execute the conveyance deeds within four weeks thereafter. The Court further clarified that if approval was not granted within the stipulated period, HMC would proceed with the execution of the deeds without any further reference to the State Government.
Case Title: Avvya Todi v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 192
The Calcutta High Court has refused to grant interim relief to a 16-year-old student seeking permission to sit for internal examinations after being expelled by a private school over allegations of bullying, while holding that the writ petition challenging the disciplinary action is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra observed that any immediate direction permitting the student to appear in the examinations would effectively keep the expulsion order in abeyance without the Court even examining that order, which had not yet been placed on record.
WB Polls: Calcutta High Court Quashes Requisition Of School's Buses For Election Duty
Case Title: South Point Education Society & Anr. vs State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 196
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the requisition of eight school buses belonging to South Point, for West Bengal Assembly election duty, holding that the police and transport authorities acted without jurisdiction and failed to show any prior approval from the competent election authorities.
Justice Krishna Rao observed that although Section 160 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, empowers the government to requisition vehicles for elections, such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or without following due process of law.
Case: Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal Vs. Ritankar Das & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 197
The Calcutta High Court has modified a single bench order, which removed all restrictions imposed by the Election Commission of India on bike riding, bike rallies and pillion riding ahead of the second phase of the West Bengal polls to be held on 29th April.
Challenging the order, the ECI approached a division bench consisting of Justices Shampa Sarkar and Ajay Kumar Gupta.
The Bench observed that after hearing submissions on the need to ensure security and peaceful polling during the second phase, the earlier order required limited modification in the larger interest of free and fair elections.
Case: Muddassir Ahmed Siddique Vs. The Election Commission of India & Ors. and connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 198
The Calcutta High Court has requested the SIR Appellate Tribunal to consider and dispose of a bunch of appeals filed by voters whose names were allegedly deleted from the electoral roll, observing that an early decision would enable the petitioner to exercise his franchise in the upcoming poll scheduled for April 29, 2026.
Justice Krishna Rao was hearing writ petitions filed by individuals who complained that although his name initially appeared in the voter list, it was subsequently removed.
Case Title: Rahul Verma v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 199
The Calcutta High Court has refused anticipatory bail to an accused in a massive cyber fraud case allegedly involving fake investment schemes, digital arrest scams and proceeds of crime running into thousands of crores, observing that he was “practically caught red-handed while perpetrating the alleged fraud.”
Justice Jay Sengupta held that the petitioner could not claim parity with members of the Ruia family, who had earlier been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench, since the allegations against him were qualitatively different.
Case Title: Md. Danish Farooqui v. Election Commission of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 200
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday disposed of a public interest litigation challenging a memo issued by the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, which had directed preventive action against persons allegedly involved in voter intimidation ahead of the Assembly elections.
A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen noted that the impugned memo dated April 27, 2026 had already been withdrawn by the Election Commission of India (ECI), rendering the matter substantially infructuous.
Case Title: Sajal Maji v. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 201
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction and 10-year sentence of a man found guilty of hurling a bomb at another person during Panchayat election campaigning in Birbhum, observing that any reasonable person throwing a bomb at someone must be presumed to know that such an act is likely to cause death.
A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray dismissed the appeal filed by Sajal Maji against his conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9B(2) of the Indian Explosives Act.
Case Title: Sudip Kumar Pal v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 202
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Border Security Force (BSF) constable for repeatedly overstaying leave and remaining absent without authorization, observing that a disciplined force cannot tolerate members who “drop in and absent” themselves at will.
Justice Amrita Sinha dismissed the writ petition filed by Sudip Kumar Pal challenging his dismissal from service and the appellate order affirming it.
Case: All India Trinamool Congress Vs. Election Commission of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 203
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an interlocutory application filed by the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) challenging the exclusion of State government or state PSU employees from being appointed as counting supervisors or counting assistants for the ongoing West Bengal Assembly elections, 2026.
"It is the prerogative of the office of the Election Commission of India to appoint the counting supervisor and counting assistant either from the State Government or the Central Government. This Court does not find any illegality for appointing counting supervisor and counting assistant from the Central Government/Central PSU employee instead of State Government employee," the Court stated.