Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sm. Mangala Sau vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 30 November, 2010
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
30.11.10
(PB)
W.P. No. 14467 (W) of 2010
Sm. Mangala Sau
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Ramdulal Manna.
.....For the Petitioner.
Mr. Subrata Mukherjee.
....For the State.
The writ petitioner is a widow of an Assistant Primary
School Teacher of a school situated in the district of Hooghly.
The petitioner's husband retired from service on 31st January,
1998. The death-cum-retirement gratuity amount was credited
in the bank account of the writ petitioner's husband on 29th
September, 2003. The writ petitioner's husband expired on
28th December, 2007. Now the petitioner's widow approaches
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
claiming interest on delayed payment of gratuity, which was
disbursed in favour of her late husband in the year December,
2004.
In the facts of the instant case, as narrated hereinabove,
it appears that the only issue that is required to be considered
by this Court is whether a writ petition is maintainable at this
stage. The writ petitioner has not been able to demonstrate at
this belated stage as to why her husband did not approach
this Court for five years claiming interest on delayed payment
of gratuity. Instead, the writ petitioner has merely stated that
the respondent authorities had illegally and without any
cogent reasons caused unnecessary delay in making payment 2 and disbursing the gratuity amount in favour of her deceased husband.
In the opinion of this Court, if the petitioner's husband was aggrieved by the delayed payment gratuity, he ought to have approached this Court during the period of five years between December, 2004, and December, 2009, when he unfortunately expired. The writ petitioner has chosen to invoke jurisdiction of this Court after almost seven months from the date of death of her husband. No explanation has been supplied in the writ petition to explain the inordinate and unexplained delay for claiming interest on delayed payment of gratuity for an amount which was admittedly deposited in the bank account of the retired employee on 29th September, 2003.
On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.)