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 2]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Amal Kumar Ghose vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 August, 2013

Author: Biswanath Somadder

Bench: Biswanath Somadder

                                       1



22.08.2013
   (PP)
                      W. P. No. 24496 (W) of 2013


                          Amal Kumar Ghose
                                  Vs.
                      The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                     Mr. Arijit Bera
                                            .....for the petitioner.

                     Mr. Mirza Kamruddin
                                                  ....for the State.



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

                   After considering the submissions made by the learned

             advocates for the parties 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 his

             superannuation from service on 31st January, 2012.

                   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 petition by

             directing the Director of Pension and Provident Fund and Group
                           2


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 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 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 3 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.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.

(Biswanath Somadder, J.)