Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Pradip Kumar Chakraborty-Ii vs State Of West Bengal & Ors. & Ors on 18 May, 2012
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
W.P.No.9884(W) of 2012
Sri Pradip Kumar Chakraborty-II
-vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors. & Ors.
Mr. Saikat Banerjee
Mr. A.S. Biswas ...for the petitioner
Mr. Jayant Banerjee
Mr. Ashim Kumar Ganguly
Mr. Berllan Shaikh ...for the State
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy
Mr. Siddhartha Rej
Mr. S. Guha Biswas ...for NBSTC
Heard on : May 18, 2012
Judgment on : May 18, 2012
The Court : The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated May 7, 2012 is
alleging that for undisclosed reasons the respondents, liable to pay him salary arrears,
gratuity, leave salary, pension, commuted value of pension, etc. and not disputing his entitlement and their liability, have not paid the benefits.
It is not disputed that the petitioner retired from services of North Bengal State Transport Corporation (in short NBSTC) on April 30, 2010, and that NBSTC incurred an obligation to pay him gratuity, leave salary, pension, commuted value of pension, etc. on May 1, 2010. Nor is it disputed that NBSTC has not paid him the benefits.
Mr Ghosh appearing for the petitioner submits that he has instructions not to press the salary arrears issue in this WP and to seek liberty to raise the issue, if necessary, with NBSTC. In view of this submission, I think I can take up the WP, for I have determination with respect to the other issues.
Mr Deb Roy appearing for NBSTC submits that the petitioner was paid in excess of his entitlement; that the amount payable could not be paid for acute financial crisis; and that for gratuity the petitioner had a remedy under s.8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. He has relied on an unreported Division Bench decision dated March 27, 2012 in MAT No.112 of 2012 (The Managing Director, CTC Ltd. & Ors. v. Munshi Abdul Rouf & Ors.).
In my opinion, financial crisis, if any, of NBSTC is not a ground to say that it was or is entitled to withhold the petitioner's gratuity, leave salary, pension, commuted value of pension, etc. It was under an obligation to pay the benefits on May 1, 2010. By withholding the benefits it has caused irreparable loss and harassment to the petitioner. This is a litigation generated by it without any valid reason.
The plea that for gratuity the petitioner had a remedy under s.8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is without merit. Availability of a statutory remedy is not a bar to seek the art.226 remedy. Besides, the petitioner's entitlement to gratuity and liability of NBSTC to pay gratuity both are undisputed.
In my opinion, NBSTC should be ordered to pay the petitioner all the benefits to which he is entitled. The relied on Division Bench decision does not entitle NBSTC to withhold the benefits or pay them in the manner it wishes. It is liable to pay interest. I think interest, if ordered at the rate of 7% p.a., will be fair and reasonable.
For these reasons, I dispose of the WP giving the petitioner liberty to approach NBSTC with salary arrears issue and directing NBSTC to pay the petitioner gratuity, leave salary, pension, commuted value of pension, etc. according to law with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from May 1, 2010, within four weeks from the date this order is served on it. No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) sb