Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Madhumita Biswas (Sarkar) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 June, 2014
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
84
26.06.2014
pg.
WP No. 24491 (W) of 2013
Madhumita Biswas (Sarkar)
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Arijit Bera
... For the petitioner
Affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record.
A further notice issued by the petitioner upon the State
advocate, a copy whereof may be taken on record.
In spite of service none appears on behalf of the
respondents even at the time of second call.
After considering the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner 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 her superannuation from service on 31st March, 2011.
It appears that this matter is squarely covered by a 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. Halder's case. I, therefore, dispose of the instant writ 2 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. 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 her 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, she 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.
3Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.)