Allowed

Sopiha Nahid v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC20 Jan 2021WPA/946/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by the widow of a deceased teacher claiming interest on delayed gratuity payments was disposed of by directing the concerned authorities to pay interest even though the petition was filed considerably late.

What did the court decide?

Payment of interest at 8% per annum on gratuity amount calculated from 1.11.2013 till date of payment to be made within eight weeks.

Sopiha Nahid Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

119 20.01.2021. jks Ct. 15

¶2

WPA 946 of 2021

¶3

Sopiha Nahid

¶4

Vs The State West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mrs. S. Khutia (Bhunaya), … For the Petitioner. Mr. Mihir Kundu, …For the State. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is kept with the record.

¶6

The petitioner’s husband was a teacher of a Primary School, who died-in-harness on 31.10.2013. She had completed all pension-related formalities after the death of her husband. The Pension Payment Order was issued on 07.11.2014. However, the concerned authorities delayed and released his gratuity amount on 15.12.2014. The petitioner herein seeks interest to be paid on the gratuity amount for the interim period of delay in receipt of the gratuity amount.

¶7

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 of the parties has 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. No. 17557 (W) of 2017 (Narayan Chandra Saha Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) wherein a co-ordinate Bench had relied upon the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh , reported

¶8

¶9

in (2008) 8 S.C.C. 648 on the issue of limitation relating to payment or re-fixation 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.

¶10

In view of the above and after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, 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 gratuity amount calculated from 1.11.2013 till the date of payment. Such payment is to be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶11

The writ petition is disposed of, however, no order as to costs.

¶12

Since no affidavit is called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied.

¶13

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

¶14

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)

Sopiha Nahid v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sopiha Nahid 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

Gita Rani Bhattacharyya Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Reba Haldar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Angur Bala Bera Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Alok Ranjan Maiti Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mira Rahaman Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Harish Chandra Mahapatra Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.