Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Manoranjan Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 9 February, 2026
09.02.2026
Sl. No.71
Ct. No.14
ss
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
W.P.A. No. 18564 of 2025
Manoranjan Ghosh
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Sreyasree Choudhury
...for the Petitioner.
Mr. Bipin Ghosh
...for the State.
1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is
taken on record.
2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks
direction upon the respondent authorities for
disbursement of interest on delayed payment of arrear pension amount from the date following the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment @ 18% per annum in his favour.
3. The petitioner contends that he was an Assistant Teacher in Kaima Primary School, P.O. Kaima, District Jhargram. The petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 31st October, 1994. The pension payment order was issued on 24th October, 2000. The arrear pension amount was disbursed to the petitioner on 24th February, 2001. However, no interest on delayed payment of arrear pension amount has been paid. Hence, this writ petition. 2
4. Ms. Sretasree Choudhury, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that since there was delay in disbursement of the arrear pension amount, the petitioner is entitled to interest from the date following the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment.
5. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the State.
6. Mr. Bipin Ghosh, learned advocate, who usually appears for the State, is requested to appear in this matter. Let his appointment be regularised by the competent authority.
7. The petitioner is directed to hand over a copy of the writ petition along with the annexures to Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the State.
8. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the State leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court.
9. Though there is delay in making such claim, however, delay per se cannot defeat the valuable right of the petitioner. Relief may be granted to the writ petitioner in spite of the delay if it does not affect the right of third parties. (See: Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 3 SCC 648).
10. It is found from the contention in the writ petition that there is delay in disbursement of the arrear pension amount. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount.
11. Accordingly, the respondent No.2, Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance as well as 3 respondent no.3, Treasury Officer, Jhargram is directed to disburse interest @ 8% per annum on the arrear pension amount in favour of the petitioner from the date following the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
12. Learned Advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondent No.2 Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance and the respondent no.3, Treasury Officer, Jhargram, for necessary compliance.
13. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition being WPA 18564 of 2025 stands disposed of.
14. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted.
15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
16. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)