Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nanda Dulal Biswas vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 1 September, 2016
Author: C.S. Karnan
Bench: C.S. Karnan
1
2016
m)
W.P. 17949 (W) of 2016
Nanda Dulal Biswas
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sandip Ghosh.
.......For the Petitioner,
Mr. Prabir Kjumar Ray.
.....For the State.
The affidavit of service filed be kept with the records.
The petitioner was appointed as Primary Teacher in the concerned school
under the respondents, Education Department.
The petitioner has retired from service with effect from 30.04.2011. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities issued Pension Payment Order (PPO) on 09.03.2012 and the gratuity amount was received on 21.04.2012. As such, the respondent authorities have delayed to pay the gratuity amount.
The learned Advocate further submits that his client approached the respondent authorities to claim interest on the delayed payment of gratuity amount but they had not considered the same. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ-petition seeking relief to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the gratuity amount. He further submits that his client rendered long service with the respondent authorities in the concerned school without any break and without any adverse remark. The learned Advocate also cited two decisions, one of which reported in 2004 (1) CLJ (Atul Chandra Mahata Vs. State & Ors.) 2 and another decision reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44 (S.K Dua Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.).
The learned Advocate further submits that as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, amount has to be paid to the petitioner within a period of 45 days but the same has not been complied with. Hence, this writ-petition is filed before this Court for direction upon the respondents and the Education Department to pay the interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity amount.
Learned Advocate for the State admitted that the petitioner has served the concerned school for a long period and has retired from service on the date as mentioned above. It is further submitted that the delay is not deliberate one but due to legal formalities and administrative process and as such the petitioner is not entitled to receive interest on the gratuity amount.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the argument advanced by the learned advocates for both the parties, this court is of the view that there is a delay in paying the gratuity amount. Hence the petitioner is entitled to receive simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity amount from the next date of retirement till the actual date of receipt of the gratuity amount.
Therefore, this court directs the respondent authorities to pay interest for the delayed payment of gratuity amount at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after verifying the relevant records pertaining to the pension payment order. 3
Accordingly, this writ-petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(C.S. Karnan, J.) 2016
m) W.P. 17949 (W) of 2016 Nanda Dulal Biswas Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sandip Ghosh.
.......For the Petitioner, Mr. Prabir Kjumar Ray.
.....For the State.
The affidavit of service filed be kept with the records. The petitioner was appointed as Primary Teacher in the concerned school under the respondents, Education Department.
The petitioner has retired from service with effect from 30.04.2011. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities issued Pension Payment Order (PPO) on 09.03.2012 and the gratuity amount was 4 received on 21.04.2012. As such, the respondent authorities have delayed to pay the gratuity amount.
The learned Advocate further submits that his client approached the respondent authorities to claim interest on the delayed payment of gratuity amount but they had not considered the same. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ-petition seeking relief to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the gratuity amount. He further submits that his client rendered long service with the respondent authorities in the concerned school without any break and without any adverse remark. The learned Advocate also cited two decisions, one of which reported in 2004 (1) CLJ (Atul Chandra Mahata Vs. State & Ors.) and another decision reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44 (S.K Dua Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.).
The learned Advocate further submits that as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, amount has to be paid to the petitioner within a period of 45 days but the same has not been complied with. Hence, this writ-petition is filed before this Court for direction upon the respondents and the Education Department to pay the interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity amount.
Learned Advocate for the State admitted that the petitioner has served the concerned school for a long period and has retired from service on the date as mentioned above. It is further submitted that the delay is not deliberate one but due to legal formalities and administrative process and as such the petitioner is not entitled to receive interest on the gratuity amount. 5
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the argument advanced by the learned advocates for both the parties, this court is of the view that there is a delay in paying the gratuity amount. Hence the petitioner is entitled to receive simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity amount from the next date of retirement till the actual date of receipt of the gratuity amount.
Therefore, this court directs the respondent authorities to pay interest for the delayed payment of gratuity amount at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after verifying the relevant records pertaining to the pension payment order.
Accordingly, this writ-petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(C.S. Karnan, J.)