Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Manindra Nath Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 April, 2010
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
05. 4.2010.
ap
W.P. 3821 (W) of 2010.
Sri Manindra Nath Ghosh
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh
... For the petitioner.
Mrs. Pratima Pratibha Chowdhuri
... For the State.
Affidavit of service filed in Court be kept on record.
Heard the learned advocates for the parties.
After considering the submissions made and upon perusing the instant application, it
appears that the principal grievance of the writ petitioner is delayed payment of gratuity by
the State, upon his superannuation from service on 1st March, 1997.
It appears that this matter is squarely covered by a recent decision of this Court
rendered in W.P. 30264 (W) of 2008 (Mohan Ch. Halder & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal
& Ors.) 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. 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
retirement of the petitioner uptil the date on which the gratuity amount is disbursed.
However, in the event there is 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
2
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 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 superannuation of the concerned employee uptil the date of disbursement of gratuity.
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 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.
Since the writ petition is being disposed of without calling for affidavits, allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed not to be admitted by the State respondents.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.) 3 4