Calcutta High Court
Kumaresh Das vs National Co-Operative Consumers' ... on 7 February, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 CAL 42
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
WP No.194 of 2014
KUMARESH DAS
Versus
NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS' FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. &ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
Date : 7th February, 2019.
Mr. Farhan Ghaffar. Advocate
..for the petitioner
Mr. Tapan Kr. Mitra, Advocate
..for the respondenets
The Court : The petitioner retired as an employee of the National Co-operative
Consumers' Federation of India Ltd., which is a Government of India Undertaking, on 31st
July, 2012. Prior to his superannuation, a vigilance case had been registered against him
and other persons. The gratuity and leave encashment amounts of the petitioner were
withheld on the ground of pendency of the vigilance case. Being aggrieved, the petitioner
approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
2
On 4th December, 2018 I had requested the learned advocate on record for the
respondents to ascertain the present status of the vigilance case. Learned advocate Mr.
Mitra has come back with written communication dated 7th January, 2019 from the office of the Director, Vigilance, Odisha, Cuttack. Let the original written communication dated 7.1.2019 be kept on record. The relevant portion of the said written communication is set out hereunder:
"Sub: Present Status of Balasore Vigilance PS Case No.07 dt.15.02.2011 U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988/420/120-B IPC.
Sir, The aforesaid case was registered against Sri Kumaresh Das, Branch Manager, National Co-operative Federation (NCCF) Ltd., Bhubaneswar and others on the allegation of purchase and distribution of sub-standard Arhar dal at higher price in Mayurbhanj District under Mid-Day Meal (MDM) and Supplementary Nutrition Programme (SNP) during the year 2010-11.
After completion of investigation, Final Report Mistake of Fact vide No.13 dt.29.07.2017 was submitted in the Court of Hon'ble Special Judge, Vigilance, Baripada and the same was accepted by the said Court on 09.07.2018."
It is, thus, clear that the vigilance case has ended and it has gone in favour of the petitioner. The case was initiated under mistake of fact.
In view of the aforesaid, there can be no further reason for the respondents to withhold the gratuity and leave encashment of the petitioner. I direct the respondents to release the petitioner's dues on account of gratuity and leave encashment within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
3
Further, the petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate dues for no fault of his own for such a long time as appears from the written communication extracted above. The concerned court has accepted that the petitioner had not committed anything wrong. Retiral benefits are social welfare measure and are meant to enable a retiring employee to live a life of dignity. If there is delay in releasing such retiral benefits, for reasons which cannot be attributed to the retired employee, in my opinion, some amount of interest must be paid on such delayed payment of retiral benefits to compensate such employee. Accordingly, I also direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the withheld retiral benefits for the period from 1.1.2013 till the actual date of payment. Such payment of interest shall be made along with retiral benefits within the period indicated above.
W.P. No.194 of 2014 is, accordingly, disposed of.
(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.) sm