Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Monju Mukherjee vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 September, 2018
Author: Protik Prakash Banerjee
Bench: Protik Prakash Banerjee
1 September 13, 2018 5 ARDR WP 9324 (W) of 2018 Monju Mukherjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Nitya Gopal Mukherjee, ...for the petitioner.
Affidavit of service is taken on record.
A draft order has been handed up by the learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner showing the proposed changes in respect of orders passed by a coordinate Bench in similar matters. I find that the cases are substantially similar to the matters decided by the coordinate Bench.
The petitioner's husband was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of a Secondary School and he retired from service on December 31, 2006 and died on November 8, 2014. The first pension payment order was issued on December 26, 2006 and the gratuity amount and arrear pension was disbursed on June 21, 1007. Under the ROPA Rules, 2009 there was revision of the pensionary and gratuity amount payable to the petitioner. The revised pension payment order was issued on July 6, 2011 and the gratuity amount and arrear pension was disbursed on August 15, 2012 in terms of ROPA, 2009. The petitioner claims interest on delayed payment of the revised gratuity and arrear pension.
2I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I have considered the orders passed by this Court in similar facts. It is settled law that retired employee is entitled to some amount of interest on delayed payment of arrear pension.
Although the point of delay or limitation has bot been urged on behalf of the State, I deem it appropriate to address that issued briefly. The Limitation Act in terms does not apply to writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Tarsen 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 is no more considered to be a bounty to be handed out by the State as its whim. An employee has a statutory right to receive gratuity upon retirement. If payment of such gratuity 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 3 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 of the State to disburse the gratuity amount on the due date. 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, 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 by payment interest at a reasonable rate.
In view of the aforesaid, I direct the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal as also the concerned Treasury Officer to pay interest to the writ petitioner @ 9% per annum on the revised gratuity amount as well as revised arrear pension calculated on and from June 1, 2009 till actual date of payment i.e. August 15, 2012.
Such payment is to be made within four weeks from the date of communication of this order to the concerned authorities.
This writ petition is disposed of, however, without any order as to costs.
Since no affidavit is called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied. 4
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Protik Prakash Banerjee, J.)