Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sd 2018 Mangala Adak vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 February, 2018
Author: Samapti Chatterjee
Bench: Samapti Chatterjee
1 89 12/2/ WP 20463(W) of 2017 sd 2018 Mangala Adak Versus The State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Dwarika Nath Mukherjee... For the petitioner. Mr. Atarul Haque Molla ... For the State.
Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
The material facts of the case are admitted and hence I have not called for affidavits.
The husband of the petitioner was the Assistant Teacher of a Primary School who died in harness on 24.12.1973. The pension payment order was issued on 02.12..2011. The petitioner approached the concerned authority for payment of interest on the delayed payment of pension. Being unsuccessful, the petitioner has approached this Court. In this writ petition she prays for interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefit.
It is now well settled that if there is a delay in releasing the pensionary benefits to a retired employee or to the legal heir of a deceased 2 employee, some amount of interest should be paid to compensate for the delay in releasing the benefits. The pensionary benefits are welfare measures meant to enable a retired employee or the dependants of a deceased employee to live a life of dignity. Hence, it is imperative and of utmost importance that such benefits are released to a retired employee or the legal heir of a deceased employee without any delay. If there is delay, interest at a reasonable rate is payable by way of compensation. This is not punitive but purely compensatory.
Although the point of delay or limitation has not been urged on behalf of the State, I deem it appropriate to address that issue briefly. The Limitation Act in terms does not apply to writ petitions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Tarmen 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 3 valuable right which accrues in his favour on the date of his attaining superannuation. Further, pensionary benefits are no more considered to be a bounty to be handed out by the State at its whim. An employee has a right to receive such benefits upon retirement. If payment of such benefits 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 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 pensionary benefits on the due date. If 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, 4 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 pensionary benefits, 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 pensionary benefits by paying interest at a reasonable rate.
Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to a Memorandum dated November 1, 2010 issued by the School Education Department, Budget Branch, Government of West Bengal. The said Memorandum pertains to pension / family pension in respect of the employees who retired or died-in-harness prior to April 1, 1981. Paragraph 4 of the said Memorandum provides inter alia, that the financial benefit may be given with effect from June 15, 1990 or from the date of application for pension / family pension whichever is later.
In the present case, the petitioner cannot state with any certainty the date of application for pension / family pension. Hence, in view of the 5 aforesaid and also having regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.D. Tewari (Dead) through legal representatives Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & ors., I direct the Treasury Officer, Arambag to pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount released in favour of the petitioner by way of pensionary benefit on and from June 15, 1990 till the date of issuance of Pension Payment Order.
Such payment of interest is to be made within eight weeks from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order to the concerned authorities.
Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to be admitted.
This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities. 6 ( Samapti Chatterjee J. )