Allowed

Jaladhi Bhushan Chaudhuri v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC28 Apr 2022WPA/4952/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this WPA, the petitioner, a retired associate professor, sought interest on gratuity amount delayed in payment by 8-9 months. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedent regarding limitation and allowed interest from the date of delay until payment.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of interest @ 8% per annum on gratuity from 01.03.2006 till payment date.

Jaladhi Bhushan Chaudhuri Vs State of West… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

Ct. 05 Item No.08 28.04.2022 (suvendu)

¶2

WPA 4952 of 2022

¶3

Jaladhi Bhushan Chaudhuri Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Mr. S.R.Kundu …….for the petitioner

¶5

Mr. Avijit Sarkar ….……for the State

¶6

The Affidavit of Service filed in Court today is kept on record.

¶7

The Supplementary Affidavit filed pursuant to the direction of this Court attempting to explain delay is also taken on record.

¶8

The petitioner was an approved Associate Professor of a College who retired from service on 28.02.2006. The petitioner had completed all pension-related formalities prior to his retirement. However, the concerned authorities delayed and released the gratuity amount on 01.09.2006. The petitioner herein seeks interest to be paid on the gratuity amount for the interim period of delay in receipt of the gratuity 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.

¶10

¶11

It is the submission of the petitioner that accordingly the petition should be allowed.

¶12

The petitioner relies upon an order in W.P. 17557 (W) of 2017 ( Narayan Chandra Saha Vs. State of West Bengal and Others ) 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 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 considering the statements made in the supplementary affidavit and the submissions made on behalf of 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 cent per annum on the gratuity amount calculated from 01.03.2006 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.

¶14

This writ petition is accordingly disposed without any order as to costs.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

( Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. )

Jaladhi Bhushan Chaudhuri v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaladhi Bhushan Chaudhuri 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

Sunia Tudu Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ruman Mitra Vs Smritikana Mani and Anr.

Rahutara St Thomas High School Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Biva Chakraborty and Anr. Vs the University of Burdwan and Ors.

Nur Afsar Mandal Vs Visva Bharati

Partha Sarathi Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.