Allowed

Pramita Dey v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC29 Jun 2022WPA/10696/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the State of West Bengal to pay 8% per annum interest on revised gratuity and arrear pension awarded under ROPA Rules, 2009, from 19.05.2009 till actual payment, dismissing the limitation objection raised.

What did the court decide?

Payment of interest @ 8% per annum on revised gratuity and drawn arrear pension from 19.05.2009 to the date of actual payment within eight weeks.

Pramita Dey Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

29.06.2022 Sl. No.438 pk

¶2

W.P.A. 10696 of 2022

¶3

Pramila Dey -VsThe State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Mr. B. B. Maity

¶5

Ms. Sangeeta Roy … for the State.

¶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 31.03.2006. The first pension payment order was issued on 31.07.2006. 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 16.12.2013 and the revised gratuity and revised arrear pension amount was disbursed on 30.04.2014 in terms of ROPA, 2009. The petitioner claims interest on delayed payment of the revised gratuity and revised 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.

¶9

The petitioner relies upon an order in W.P. 17557 (W) of 2017 (Narayan Chandra Saha vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) 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

¶10

¶11

may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of the third party.

¶12

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 revised arrear pension amount calculated on and from 19.05.2009 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.

¶13

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶14

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.

¶15

There will be no order as to costs.

¶16

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

¶17

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

Pramita Dey v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramita Dey 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

Bhanu Goswami Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Rakhi Chowdhury (Patra) Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Hemanta Lohar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Anamika Mondal & Ors. Vs State & Ors.

Buddheswar Mahata Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mihir Saha Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.