Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Suhas Chandra Chakraborty vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 June, 2012
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
W.P. No. 10885 (W) of 2012
Suhas Chandra Chakraborty
-vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Saikat Banerjee and Mr Jasojeet Mukherjee, advocates, for the petitioner. Mr.
Kartik Kumar Roy, advocate, for the State. Mr. Pantu Deb Roy and Mr
Siddhartha Roy, advocates, for NBSTC.
Heard on : June 11, 2012.
Judgment on : June 11, 2012.
The Court : The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated May 16, 2012 is
alleging that for undisclosed reasons the respondents, liable to pay him gratuity,
leave salary, pension, commuted value of pension, etc. and not disputing his entitlement and their liability, have not paid the benefits.
It is not disputed that the petitioner retired from services of North Bengal State Transport Corporation (in short NBSTC) on November 30, 2009, and that NBSTC incurred an obligation to pay him gratuity, leave salary, pension, commuted value of pension, etc. on December 1, 2009. Nor is it disputed that NBSTC has not paid him the benefits.
Mr Deb Roy appearing for NBSTC submits that the petitioner was paid in excess of his entitlement; that the amount payable could not be paid for acute financial crisis; and that for gratuity the petitioner had a remedy under s.8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. He has relied on an unreported Division Bench decision dated March 27, 2012 in MAT No.112 of 2012 (The Managing Director, CTC Ltd. & Ors. v. Munshi Abdul Rouf & Ors.).
2In my opinion, financial crisis, if any, of NBSTC is not a ground to say that it was or is entitled to withhold the petitioner's gratuity, leave salary, pension, commuted value of pension, etc. It was under an obligation to pay the benefits on December 1, 2009. By withholding the benefits it has caused irreparable loss and harassment to the petitioner. This is a litigation it has generated without any valid reason.
The plea that for gratuity the petitioner had a remedy under s.8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is without merit. Availability of a statutory remedy such as the one under s.8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not a bar to seek the art.226 remedy. Besides, the petitioner's entitlement to gratuity and liability of NBSTC to pay gratuity both are undisputed.
In my opinion, NBSTC should be ordered to pay the petitioner all the benefits to which he is entitled. The relied on Division Bench decision does not entitle NBSTC to withhold the benefits or pay them in the manner it wishes. It is liable to pay interest. I think interest, if ordered at the rate of 7% p.a., will be fair and reasonable.
For these reasons, I dispose of the WP directing NBSTC to pay the petitioner gratuity, leave salary, pension, commuted value of pension, etc. according to law with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from December 1, 2009, within four weeks from the date this order is served on it. No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) kc.