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 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Samarendra Dey vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 June, 2013

Author: Biswanath Somadder

Bench: Biswanath Somadder

24.6.2013.
  ap                           W.P. 17742 (W) of 2013

                                          Samarendra Dey
                                                 Vs.
                               The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                                        Mr. Sourav Mitra
                                                ... For the petitioner.

                                        Mr. Khaliqur Rahman
                                                ... For the State.


                     Affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record.

                     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, upon his

             superannuation from service on 31st March, 2008.

                      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 W.P. 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. 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 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 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.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties.

(Biswanath Somadder, J.) 24.6.2013.

ap             W.P. 17442 (W) of 2013

                                Golam Mohammad Halder
                                              Vs.
                                The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                                         Mr. Pankaj Halder
                                                 ... For the petitioner.


Affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record. In spite of service none appears on behalf of the respondents even at the time of second call.

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, upon his superannuation from service with effect from 31st August, 2008.

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 W.P. 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. 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 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 superannuation of the concerned employee 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 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 parties.

(Biswanath Somadder, J.)