Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Basudev Ganesh Chandra Dutta vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 July, 2013
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
129 WP No. 22699 (W) of 2013
31.07.2013
Basudev Ganesh Chandra Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Chandan Dutta
... For the petitioner.
Mrs. Debarati Sen Bose
... For the State.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on
record.
At the outset, the learned advocate for the petitioner
submits that his client does not wish to press for interest on
delayed payment of gratuity in respect of the first Pension
Payment Order which was issued in his favour. As such, the
prayer for interest on delayed payment of gratuity in respect of
the first Pension Payment Order stands rejected.
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, on
the basis of his second Pension Payment Order.
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 WP
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 Insurance to pay interest at the rate of
10% on the gratuity amount to be computed from the date
of coming into force of the relevant notification entitling the
petitioner to get revised pension, uptil the date on which the
gratuity amount was disbursed in terms of the second
Pension Payment Order. However, in the event there is any
material before the said authority that because of any wilful
2
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 coming into force of the relevant notification entitling the petitioner to get revised pension, uptil the date of disbursement of gratuity in terms of the second Pension Payment Order.
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 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.)