Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Dr. Niranjan Sahu vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 August, 2015

Author: Samapti Chatterjee

Bench: Samapti Chatterjee

                                             1




13.08.2015
 KAUSHIK
                                  W.P. 18332(W) of 2015

                                   Dr. Niranjan Sahu
                                           Vs.
                             The State of West Bengal & Ors.



             Mr. L.K. Pal,
             Mr. Bandhu Brata Bhula.
                             ... for the petitioner.

             Ms. Anjusree Mukherjee,
             Ms. Susmita Biswas Chowdhury.
                             ... for the State.



                   The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing

             the impugned order dated 25th June, 2015 passed by the

             Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance

             whereby the petitioner's prayer for interest on arrear pension

             was rejected.

                   Mr. Pal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner

             submits that the petitioner is very much entitled to enjoy 18%

             interest for delayed payment of arrear pension for the period

             from 31st January, 2010 to 27th January, 2012.

                   He further contends that the petitioner retired on 31st

             January, 2010 and Pension Payment Order was issued on 15th

             November, 2011. Therefore, the petitioner is very much entitled

             to get 18% interest for delayed payment of arrear pension from

             the period 31st January, 2010 to 27th January, 2012.           In

             support of his contention, Mr. Pal relied on Supreme Court

             decision reported in 2001(9) SCC 687 paragraphs 3 and 4 which

             are quoted below:
                                      2




            "3. In case of an employee retiring after having rendered
     service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits
     should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for
     some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be
     made on the date of retirement.
            4. In this case, there is absolutely no reason or
     justification for not making the payments for months together.
     We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the appellant

within 12 weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from the date of her retirement, i.e., 31-8-1997 till the date of payments."

Mr. Pal also relied on Supreme Court decision reported in 2001(6) SCC 591, paragraph 2 which is quoted below:

"Since the appellant University did not settle the first respondent's claim for terminal benefits including the fixation and disbursement of the pension, the first respondent filed CMWP No. 30428 of 1997. The writ petitioner was opposed by the appellant University contending that the first respondent, having not vacated the quarters held by him when he retired and within the permissible extended period, was liable for payment of penal rent in respect of such accommodation and that as a matter of fact the Finance Controller, Office of Directorate of Higher Education, U.P., who examined his pension papers, order on the recommendation of the university authorities the adjustment of Rs.3,20,638.04 from the amounts due towards the retiral benefits. Further, a sum of Rs.64,441.54 was also ordered to be deducted from the provident fund amount due to the first respondent. On a consideration of the respective claims of parties, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by its order dated 17-8- 1998, applying the principles laid down in Som Prakash Rekhi Vs. Union of India and R. Kapur Vs. Director of Inspection (Painting and Publication) Income Tax overruled the objections of the University holding that the pension and other retiral benefits cannot be withheld or adjusted or appropriated for the satisfactions of any other views outstanding against the retired employee. The action of the university authorities to be contrary was held to be illegal and while allowing the claim of 3 the first respondent, a direction came to be issued to pay the entire pension and provident fund etc. due to the first respondent, with penal interest @18% within two months from the date of the order."

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the decisions cited by learned advocate for the petitioner, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 25th June, 2015 issued by Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25th June, 2015 issued by Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance is hereby set aside and quashed.

In view thereof, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondents and particularly the concerned Treasury Officer to pay to the petitioner interest on arrear pension @ 10% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment within 16 weeks from the date of service of an authenticated copy of this order failing which, additional interest @ 2% per annum shall be payable to the petitioner.

With this direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Samapti Chatterjee, J.)