Allowed

Malay Kumar Mandal v. W.Bse.D.C.L and Ors.

Calcutta HC19 Jul 2022WPA/12521/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an electricity distribution company is liable to pay interest on delayed retirement benefits. The court reasoned that requiring a retired employee to sign a no-dues certificate does not waive their right to claim interest for the delay caused by the employer's inability to pay on time.

What did the court decide?

Directed WBSEDCL to pay interest on belated retiral dues from 1st November, 2020 at 6% per annum, escalating to 10% if not paid by 22nd August, 2022.

Malay Kumar Mandal Vs W.Bse.D.C.L and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

14 19.07.2022

¶2

sb Ct 23

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WPA 12521 of 2022

¶5

Malay Kumar Mandal Vs.

¶6

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors.

¶7

Mr. Bikash Shaw

¶8

…. For the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Sumit Panja, Mr. Sumit Ray … For WBSEDCL

¶10

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on

¶11

record.

¶12

The petitioner was initially an employee of West Bengal State Electricity Board (in short, WBSEB). After bifurcation of WBSEB the petitioner became an employee of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (in short WBSEDCL) and retired therefrom on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31^st October, 2020. The petitioner was paid his retiral benefits in phases at a belated stage. Rs.20 lakhs was paid on 10^th May, 2021 (as gratuity). On 3^rd May, 2021 and 2^nd July, 2021 he was paid as arrears of pension respectively a sum of Rs.3,57,750/- and 62,733/-. The petitioner is claiming interest for delayed payment of his retiral dues.

¶13

On behalf of WBSEDCL, it is submitted that the

¶14

¶15

petitioner had issued a “no dues” certificate while he received the principal sum. The petitioner therefor is not entitled to any interest for the delayed payment. After having issued “no dues” certificate, the petitioner has waived his right or is estopped from claiming any interest for delayed payment. It is further submitted by WBSEDCL that in respect of some assignment given to the petitioner during his service tenure some enquiry is going on and, as such, the delay occurred for which WBSEDCL as an employer cannot be held responsible.

¶16

The fact remains that the date of superannuation is admitted. So as the dates on which the retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner. No show-cause notice in contemplation of initiating a disciplinary proceedings had been issued against the petitioner prior to his retirement. No disciplinary proceedings has also initiated against the petitioner. On the contrary, despite there being an enquiry in respect of some assignment given to the petitioner during his service tenure as submitted by WBSEDCL, the petitioner was paid his retiral benefits. If the issue was so serious as sought to be projected by WBSEDCL the principal sum should have been kept withheld which is not in the instant case. The matter is, therefor, not required to be heard on affidavits as there is no disputed question of fact. In absence of the petitioner being proceeded with in any manner whatsoever, it was the obligation of WBSEDCL to pay the retiral benefits to

¶17

¶18

the petitioner at the earliest. Having not done so, WBSEDCL as an employer has become liable to compensate the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was deprived of the money on account of his retiral benefits for the delayed period and the money remained with WBSEDCL by paying interest. “no dues” certificate was required to be issued by the petitioner to receive the payment. A retired person like the petitioner, if is made to sign a “no dues” certificate as a precondition for releasing his retiral benefits cannot be accused of having waived his right to claim interest or being estopped from claiming interest for the delay in paying his retiral dues once he has issued the “no dues” or “no claims” certificate. The super bargaining power of the employer to impose a condition to issue discharge voucher with “no dues” or “no claims” cannot be overlooked. A retired employee like the petitioner does not have the strength to deny the issuance of “no dues” certificate as he is in necessity to receive the retiral benefits to live with dignity.

¶19

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I direct WBSEDCL to pay interest on the retiral dues which was paid belatedly from 1^st November, 2020 till the actual payment of such amount at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The interest has to be paid by 22^nd August, 2022, failing which the interest rate will increase and stand at the rate of 10 per cent per annum being the rate

¶20

¶21

of interest payable in respect of delay in paying gratuity. The petitioner’s right to claim interest finds support in the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2022) 4 SCC 627 ( Dr. A. Selvaraj vs. C.B.M. College & Ors .). The rate of interest allowed is fair and reasonable in view of the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2021) 11 SCC 543 ( State of Andhra Pradesh and Another vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari ).

¶22

Nothing further remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition. The same is disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.

¶23

Since I have not called for any affidavits, allegation made in the writ petition are deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents.

¶24

All parties, including the officials of WBSEDCL, responsible for making payment by carrying out the direction given in this order shall act on the basis of the copy of this order duly down loaded from the official website of this Court without insisting upon production of certified copy thereof.

¶25

Although, WBSEDCL is represented and this order is passed in their presence for which no further notice is required yet for abundant caution, the petitioner may serve a server copy of this order upon WBSEDCL.

¶26

¶27

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.

¶28

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)

Malay Kumar Mandal v. W.Bse.D.C.L and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malay Kumar Mandal v. W.Bse.D.C.L 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

Santimoy Datta Gupta Vs Union Bank of India and Others

Sonali Sen Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sanjoy Bhowmick Vs West Bengal Transport Corporation Limited and Ors.

Debasis Goswami Vs Union of India and Ors.

Surojit Goswami Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Joy Sankar Chakraborty Vs Union of India and Ors.