Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Santosh Kumar Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 July, 2024
Author: Arindam Mukherjee
Bench: Arindam Mukherjee
02.07.2024 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Sl. No.2 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION (PP) APPELLATE SIDE WPA 26917 of 2023 Santosh Kumar Das Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Gobindadas Mitra ....for the petitioner.
Ms. Deblina Chattaraj ....for WBTCL.
The writ petitioner retired from the services of Calcutta Tramways Company (1978) Ltd. (in short "CTC") now known as West Bengal Transport Corporation Limited (in short "WBTCL") on 28th February, 2019. The petitioner was paid his retiral benefits on 12th July, 2019. The petitioner says that since the petitioner was paid the retiral benefits after a lapse of about 5 months, the petitioner is entitled to receive interest for such delayed payment. The petitioner has claimed such interest in this writ petition.
The petitioner, between 12th July, 2019 and 16th August, 2023, had taken no steps to assert his legal rights. Only on 16th August, 2023, the petitioner made a representation for interest on delayed payment. The writ petition has been filed on 1 st December, 2023.
2The law in respect of service related claim has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648. In paragraph 7 of the said judgment which is quoted hereinbelow:
"7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by a application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is 3 concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."
It has been clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches where remedy is sought for by filing a writ petition. The only exception to that is cases relating to a continuing wrong.
"Continuing wrong" has been clearly dealt with in the judgment reported in AIR 1959 SC 798 (Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare vs. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan).
Paragraph 31 of Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare has been quoted in Tarsem Singh (supra), which is set out hereunder:
"31.....It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing 4 wrong. In this connection, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury."
In the instant case, the wrongful act committed by WBTCL was on 12th July, 2019 when after 5 months the retiral benefits were paid to the petitioner. Such wrongful act and injury therefrom had been caused was complete on that day and there was no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the wrongful act may have continued even thereafter. The claim for interest is on such account.
The claim for interest made after more than 5 years is admittedly a belated service related claim which accrued in July, 2019 and has been claimed in December, 2023 by filing the instant writ petition. Even if the petitioner is given the benefit of the pandemic between 15th March, 2020 and 28th February, 2022, then also the petitioner has approached the Court after about 2 years and as such, there has been an inordinate delay. There is no continuous wrong in the instant case as the wrong ceased on 12th July, 2019 though the damage resulting therefrom may have continued even thereafter.
The writ petitioner says that there is no limitation in case of a writ petition and cites the 5 judgment reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1248 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. O.P. Gupta) and the Division Bench judgment reported in 2022 SCC Online Cal 3129 (Amarnath Tiwary & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) in support of such contention. The proposition that there is no limitation in case of a writ petition is not an absolute proposition as will appear from the Supreme Court judgments reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 489 (Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D)) and 2024 (3) SCC 148 (Delhi Development Authority vs. Hello Home Education Society). That apart and in any event the judgments cited by the petitioner are related to general provisions of law when Tarsem Singh (supra) is specifically on service related claim. Tarsem Singh (supra) has been followed in Asger Ibrahim Amin vs. LIC reported in 2016 (13) SCC 797 and lastly in 2022 SCC Online SC 641 (Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation). The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court considered the delay aspect but did not take note of either Tarsem Singh (supra) or Asger Ibrahim (supra) but proceeded on the basis of promise to pay which is absent in the facts of the instant case. 6
For the reasons as aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)