Allowed

Gurugobinda Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC8 Apr 2021WPA/2399/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, a retired teacher, sought interest on delayed payment of revised gratuity and arrear pension under the ROPA Rules, 2009. The Court, relying on prior precedents regarding delay in pension cases, directed the Director of Pension and Treasury Officer to pay interest at 8% per annum from June 1, 2009, within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Interest at 8% per annum on revised gratuity and arrear pension from June 1, 2009 to be paid within eight weeks.

Gurugobinda Chowdhury Vs State of West… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

S/L 50 08.4.2021 Court No.26 SD

¶2

WPA 2399 of 2021 (Via Video Conference)

¶3

Gurugobinda Chowdhury Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Imdadul Biswas

¶5

… for the Petitioner.

¶6

Affidavit of service filed in court today is kept with the record.

¶7

The petitioner was an Assistant Teacher of a High School who retired on 28.02.2008. The first pension payment order was issued on 11.3.2008. Under the ROPA Rules, 2009 there was revision of the pensionary and gratuity amount payable to the petitioner. The revised pension payment order was issued on 01.01.2013 and the revised gratuity and arrear pension amount was disbursed on 14.5.2013 in terms of ROPA, 2009. The petitioner claims interest on delayed payment of the revised gratuity and arrear pension amount.

¶8

There is a considerable delay in filing of the writ petition, which the petitioner seeks to justify by stating that there is no statutory period of limitation and neither parties have suffered due to this delay. It is the submission of the petitioner that accordingly the petition should be allowed. The petitioner relies upon an order in W.P. 17557 (W) of 2017 (Narayan Chandra Saha vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.)

¶9

¶10

wherein a co-ordinate Bench had relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 on the issue of limitation relating to payment or refixation of pay or pension wherein the Apex Court had held that relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of the third party.

¶11

In view of the above and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I direct the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal as also the concerned Treasury Officer to pay interest to the petitioner @ 8% per annum on the revised gratuity and arrear pension amount calculated on and from June 1, 2009 till the date of actual payment. Such payment is to be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶12

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶13

Since, no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents.

¶14

There will be no order as to costs.

¶15

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.

¶16

(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

Gurugobinda Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurugobinda Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Supratik Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and 5 Ors.

M/S Bullion Business Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Lakshmi Kanta Pandit Vs State of W B & Ors.

Banamali Garain Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Utpal Bhattacharya Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Smt Gitanjanli Roy Vs Debesh Kumar Roy & Anr.