Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mihir Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 December, 2014
Author: Debasish Kargupta
Bench: Debasish Kargupta
1
22.12.2014
srm
W.P. No. 33508 (W) of 2014
Mihir Mondal
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sudip Sakar,
Mrs. Sabita Khutia (Bhunya)
... For the Petitioner.
Ms. Susmita Mukherjee
...For the State.
Let affidavit‐of‐service filed be kept with the record.
This writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner for a direction upon the
respondent authorities to pay interest on gratuity and arrear pension for belated
payment of the same.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petitioner was a Karmee of Benai Gram Panchayet, District-Paschim Medinipur and he retired from the above service on September 30, 2007 on attaining the age of retirement on superannuation.
First payment was made to the petitioner on January 31, 2008. First payment on the basis of revision was made on December 28, 2011.
A prayer is made on behalf of the petitioner not to press the claim of interest on gratuity and arrear pension on first payment for delayed payment of the same and to confine the prayer of the petitioner in respect of the benefit of interest on revision of pay and allowance for delayed payment of that benefit. The point of law, which is involved in this writ application, has already been settled by a judgment delivered by a Single Bench of this Court in W.P. 10750 2 (W) of 2007 on July 9, 2008 in the matter of Abha Acharya -vs‐ State of West Bengal & Others. In the above case the petitioner was a primary school teacher and there was delay in releasing his gratuity money. Operative portion of the above decision is quoted below :‐ "Following the said Judgment and/or Order, I dispose of W.P. No. 1867 (W) of 2007 on 04.04.2008 and in other similar matters, I observed that since the issue was similar, the Order that I had passed in the said W.P. No. 1867 (W) of 2007 should govern those cases also.
However today when this huge pile of cases were heard, a submission was made which was not made in the cases before me referred to above, and which was to the effect that there cannot be any adjudication on the question as to who was responsible for delay in matters pertaining to payment of gratuity because the entitlement to gratuity is automatic and is to be paid on the very day the person retires. Even the learned Advocate General did not dispute this contention and very frankly and fairly stated that so far as the gratuity is concerned, it has to be paid on the date the person retires with the only exception that it can be withheld in cases where a departmental action is pending against the concerned employee."
The point of law with regard to the payment of interest of delayed payment of gratuity has already been decided in a matter of an Assistant Teacher of Non‐ Government Aided Educational Institution. The above settled principle of law is applicable in this case. I do not find any reason for disagreeing with the point of law involved in the above case.
On the basis of the above observation, direction was given to the respondent authority to pay interest on gratuity at the rate of 10% per annum. I do not find any reason for disagreeing with the above decision. 3
Accordingly, I direct the competent authority of the respondents to give 9% interest per annum on the delayed payment of the gratuity and arrear pension from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment within two months from the date of communication of this order provided the petitioner is entitled to get the above benefit in accordance with law. If the amount is not paid within the period mentioned hereinabove, the aforesaid gratuity and arrear pension shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of amount falls due till the date of its actual payment.
It is necessary to point out that the rate of interest is fixed @9% per annum taking into consideration the highest rate of interest payable by a Nationalized Bank on fixed deposit. The payment of interest @18% per annum in case of failure to make payment within the period mentioned hereinabove is given on the basis of the decision of D.D. Tiwari vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Bitaran Nigam Ltd., reported in AIR 2014 SC 2861.
I make it clear that in the event the petitioner is not entitled to get the above benefit, the competent authority of the respondents shall communicate the reason therefor to the petitioner within the period mentioned hereinabove. The writ petition, is, thus, disposed of.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy be supplied to the parties, if applied for, on priority basis.
( Debasish Kar Gupta, J. )