Allowed

Siddhartha Sankar Bandhyopadhyay v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC10 May 2022MAT/286/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant, a retired state employee, appealed a Single Bench order directing payment of arrear salary but not interest. The Division Bench modified the order, holding the State liable to pay the arrear salary with 4% annual interest from the date of superannuation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is modified to direct the State authorities to pay the arrear salary of Rs.1,64,329 along with interest at 4% per annum from the date of superannuation until actual payment.

Siddhartha Sankar Bandhyopadhyay Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

24 10.5.2022 Sc Ct. no.4

¶2

MAT 286 OF 2022 with I.A. No. CAN 1 OF 2022

¶3

--------------

¶4

Siddhartha Sankar Bandyopadhyay Vs.

¶5

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Srikanta Datta

¶7

…. For the Appellant

¶8

Mr. Ashim Kr. Ganguly Mr. Bellal Shaikh.

¶9

…. For the State/ Respondents

¶10

Even after attaining the superannuation, the appellant was denied the arrear salary which he was entitled under the statutory provisions. Since all the requests and approaches failed to convince the authorities, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court seeking a mandamus upon the authorities to disburse the said amount. By the impugned order, the Single Bench disposed of the said writ petition directing the arrear salary to be paid as specified therein but did not grant relief in the form of interest to carry thereupon, precisely for the said reason that the present appeal has been filed.

¶11

The State supported the impugned order but accepted the legal entitlement of the appellant to the said amount. According to the State, the moment Single Bench directed the said amount to be paid as arrear

¶12

¶13

salary and refund to award interest thereupon, the appellate court should seldom interfere with the said order as the discretion was exercised in reasonable manner.

¶14

Since the amount was unreasonably withheld by the State authorities, which ought to have been paid timely, we do not find any justification in the stand of the State that the petitioner is not entitled to interest thereupon.

¶15

The impugned order is, therefore, modified to the extent that the State authoriti es shall pay Rs.1,64,329/along with interest @4% per annum to be calculated from the date of superannuation till the actual payment.

¶16

With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of. Accordingly CAN 1 of 2022 is also disposed of.

¶17

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.

¶18

(Rabindranath Samanta, J.) (Harish Tandon, J.)

Siddhartha Sankar Bandhyopadhyay v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddhartha Sankar Bandhyopadhyay 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Barnali Purkait (Mondal) Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Smt Sudipta Sankar Bose Vs Gobinda Ghosal and Ors.

Subhra Roy Vs Union of India and Ors.

Smt. Neha Mishra Vs Sanjeev Mishra

Shyamapada Bid Vs Union of India and Ors.

Debtosh Kumar Mondal Vs Shelly @ Jolly Mondal (Biswas)