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 5]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Prabir Kumar Maiti vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 January, 2011

Author: Biswanath Somadder

Bench: Biswanath Somadder

                                                     1

10.01.2011.
   ap              W.P. 16210 (W) of 2010.

                               Prabir Kumar Maiti
                                        Vs.
                          The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                              Mr. Sourav Mitra
                                    ... For the petitioner.


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

                   Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner.

                  After considering the submissions made and upon perusing the instant writ

              application, it appears that the principal grievance of the writ petitioner is delayed

              payment of gratuity by the State, upon his superannuation on 31st October, 2003.

                   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 application 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 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
                                          2

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 5