Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Monoranjan Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 30 September, 2013
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
30.09.2013
(PP)
W. P. No. 30443 (W) of 2013
Monoranjan Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Subhajit Panja
....for the petitioner.
Mr. Sudhakar Thakur
....for the State.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record.
At the outset, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits
that his client does not wish to press for interest on delayed
payment of gratuity in respect of the first Pension Payment Order
which was issued in his favour. As such, the prayer for interest
on delayed payment of gratuity in respect of the first Pension
Payment Order stands rejected.
After considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant writ
petition, it appears that the principal grievance of the writ
petitioner is delayed payment of gratuity by the State, on the
basis of his second Pension Payment Order.
It appears that this matter is squarely covered by a recent
decision of this Court rendered in the case of Mohan Ch. Halder
& Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. in WP 30264 (W) of 2008
along with several other writ petitions on 14th May, 2009.
I am of the view that similar directions can be given in the
instant writ petition, as directed by this Court in Mohan Ch.
2
Halder's case. I, therefore, dispose of the instant writ petition by
directing the Director of Pension and Provident Fund and Group
Insurance to pay interest at the rate of 10% on the gratuity
amount to be computed from the date of coming into force of the
relevant notification entitling the petitioner to get revised pension,
uptil the date on which the gratuity amount was disbursed in
terms of the second Pension Payment Order. However, in the
event there is any material before the said authority that because
of any wilful laches on the part of the concerned employee in
receiving the gratuity amount or the disbursement of gratuity was
held up for some specific negligent acts on the part of the
claimant and the said sum could not be paid on the date of
superannuation or at any later date, then it would be permissible
for the said authority to decline payment of interest. But before
finally deciding this issue, an opportunity of hearing shall be
given to the writ petitioner and the reason shall be disclosed as to
why the interest on gratuity is not being paid in his case. In the
event, there is any disciplinary proceeding pending against the
petitioner, then also the authorities would be entitled to withhold
the payment of gratuity.
The respondent authorities are accordingly directed to release
interest on delayed payment of gratuity to the petitioner to be computed from the date of coming into force of the relevant notification entitling the petitioner to get revised pension, uptil the date of disbursement of gratuity in terms of the second Pension Payment Order.
Such payment shall be made within ninety days from the date of communication of this order. In the event the authorities, for reasons indicated above, decide not to pay the interest to the writ petitioner, he shall be informed in writing, within thirty days from 3 the date of communication of this order, the reason as to why such interest would not be paid and thereafter the procedure directed above shall be followed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.)