Calcutta High Court
Dr. Rahul Sinha vs State Of West Bengal on 14 July, 2009
Author: Sengupta
Bench: Sengupta
Order Sheet
APO No. 473 of 2006
with
WP No. 2135 of 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
IN APPEAL FROM
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
Dr. Rahul Sinha
Versus
State of West Bengal
Before:
The Hon'ble Justice Sengupta
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Abdul Ghani
_______________________________________________________________
Date Order
_______________________________________________________________
14.07.2009
This appeal has been filed for not taking any
decision with regard to the payment of interest on
account of alleged delayed payment of retiral
benefit. We have checked the prayer portion of the
writ petition. In prayer (a) the writ petitioner-
appellant has claimed interest specifically and
before filing of the writ petition the writ
petitioner appears to have demanded payment of
Order Sheet 2
interest by writing a letter dated 20th September
2002. In course of hearing of the writ petition
before the learned trial Judge from time to time
certain amounts were paid by the respondents. In the
aforesaid factual context it appears that arguments were advanced on the question of payment of interest for delayed release of retiral benefits. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that even amount of interest has already been paid in course of hearing of the writ petition. Such submission is disputed by Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the appellant.
From the judgment we find that though argument was advanced the impugned judgment is silent on this point and no decision is rendered. We feel that specific judgement and decision must be there as the Appeal Court cannot take the role of Trial Court so easily.
Under such circumstances we remand the writ petition for decision on the limited point of interest whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the appellant-writ petitioner is entitled to any interest under the law or whether any amount of interest has been paid during pendency of the Order Sheet 3 writ petition or not, if so then what amount of interest would be payable at all by the respondent to the appellant. We request the learned Trial Judge to decide the aforesaid issues as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of bringing this judgment to the notice of the learned Trial Judge. If necessary, it would be open for the parties to file further affidavits in the trial court in this regard stating the amounts have been paid on account of principal sum and interest during pendency of the writ petition. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Let urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Sengupta, J.) (Md. Abdul Ghani, J.) R. Bose A.R.(C.R.)