Allowed

Bijoy Kumar Sen v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC22 Jun 2022WPA/10839/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition filed by a retired headmaster claiming interest on delayed revised gratuity and arrear pension. Despite admitting a significant delay in filing, the法官 allowed the claim, directing the respondents to pay interest at 8% per annum from a specified date.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay interest @ 8% per annum on revised gratuity and revised arrear pension from 14.02.2020 within eight weeks.

Bijoy Kumar Sen Vs State of West Bengal and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

22.06.2022 Sl. No.337 ap

¶2

W.P.A. 10839 of 2022

¶3

Bijoy Kumar Sen -Vs-

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Ms. Sreyashee Choudhury.

¶6

… … for the petitioner Mr. Subhendu Sengupta. ..for the State.

¶7

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

¶8

The petitioner was a ‘Headmaster’ of a High School, who retired on 31.03.2016. The first pension payment order was issued on 13.02.2016. Under the ROPA Rules, 2019 there was revision of the pensionary and gratuity amount payable to the petitioner. The revised pension payment order was issued on 09.03.2021 and the gratuity and revised arrear pension was disbursed on 18.06.2021 in terms of ROPA, 2019. The petitioner claims interest on delayed payment of the revised gratuity and revised arrear pension amount.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

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.

¶13

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 calculated on and from 14.02.2020 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.

¶14

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

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.

¶16

There will be no order as to costs.

¶17

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

¶18

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

Bijoy Kumar Sen v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijoy Kumar Sen 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aswini Kumar Singh Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Suman Biswas Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Surajit Ghosh Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Satarupa Sinha Roy Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Dulal Ch. Kundu &Anr Vs State of West Bengal& Ors.

Mukunda Singha Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.