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 1, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Ns 2017 Sabitri Debi vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 23 October, 2017

Author: Arijit Banerjee

Bench: Arijit Banerjee

                                           1

1351   23.10.                      WP 17564 (W) of 2017
ns      2017                           Sabitri Debi.
                                          Versus
                              State of West Bengal & ors.



                Mr. Sandip Ghosh               ...           for the petitioner.

                Mr. Kartick Kr. Bhattacharyya         ....       for the State.


                          Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept

                with the record.

                          The material facts of the case are admitted

                and hence I have not called for affidavits.

                          The petitioner's husband was appointed as a

                teacher of a primary school and died on 12.12.1993

                while he was in service.       The pension payment order

                was issued on 24.06.1999.          The gratuity amount and

                the arrear pension was paid on 04.11.1999. The

                petitioner claims interest on delayed payment of the

                gratuity and pension.

                          Although the point of delay or limitation has

                not been urged on behalf of the State, I deem it

                appropriate   to    address    that    issue   briefly.    The

                Limitation Act in terms does not apply to writ petitions.

                The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of
                          2


India Versus Tarmen Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC

648 has observed that 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.   It is settled law that the right of a retired

employee to get his retiral dues on the date of attaining

superannuation is a valuable right which accrues in his

favour on the date of his attaining superannuation.

Further, gratuity and pension are no more considered to

be a bounty to be handed out by the State at its whim.

An employee has a statutory right to receive gratuity

and pension upon retirement.       If payment of such

gratuity and pension is delayed, the retired employee is

surely entitled to get some interest for such delayed

payment.

           The Rule that the High Court may not enquire

into belated and stale claim is not a Rule of Law, but

one of practice based on sound and proper exercise of

discretion. The principle on which the relief to a party

is denied on the ground of laches or delay is that the

right which have accrued to others by reason of delay in

approaching the Court should not be allowed to be

disturbed. In the present case, it was the bounden duty
                             3


of the State to disburse the pension and gratuity

amount on the due date. If it has failed to do so and

has released such amount after unexplained delay, it is

obliged to pay interest to the retired employee. This is

compensatory in nature.          Pension and gratuity are

aimed at maintaining the life of a retired employee and

his/her dependents, these are welfare provisions and

even if there is delay on the part of a retired employee to

approach the Court claiming interest on delayed

payment of gratuity and pension, the delay per se

should not be the ground for rejection of the writ

petition.   No third party interest will be affected by a

direction on the State to compensate the retired

employee for delayed payment of gratuity and pension

by paying interest at a reasonable rate.

            I have heard learned counsel for the parties

and I have considered the orders passed by this Court

in similar facts. It is settled law that a retired employee

is entitled to some amount of interest on delayed

payment of gratuity and pension.

            In view of the aforesaid, I direct the Director of

Pension,     Provident    Fund    and    Group    Insurance,

Government of West Bengal as also the concerned
                              4


Treasury Officer to pay interest to the writ petitioner at

the rate of nine per cent per annum on the gratuity

amount as well as arrear pension for the period from

13.12.1993

till 04.11.1999.

Such payment is to be made within eight weeks from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order to the concerned authorities.

Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to be admitted.

WP 17564(W) of 2017 is, accordingly, disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

( Arijit Banerjee, J. )