Allowed

Sukumar Hajra v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Calcutta HC20 Jul 2022WPA/994/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants interest on delayed revised arrear pension to the petitioner under ROPA Rules, 2009, relying on Supreme Court principles regarding limitation and third-party rights, despite a delayed filing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Interest @ 8% per annum on revised arrear pension from 19.05.2009 till the date of actual payment to be paid by the Director of Pension and concerned Treasury Officer within eight weeks.

Sukumar Hajra Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

20.07.2022 Sl. No. 429 ap

¶2

W.P.A. 994 of 2019

¶3

Sukumar Hajra -VsThe State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Sudip Sarkar.

¶5

… … for the petitioner

¶6

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

¶7

The husband of the petitioner was an ‘Assistant Teacher’ of a High School, who retired on 31.10.2006. The first pension payment order was issued on 30.10.2006. 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 22.02.2013 and the gratuity amount was disbursed on 02.05.2013 in terms of ROPA, 2009. The petitioner claims interest on delayed payment of the 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 arrear pension 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.)

Sukumar Hajra v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumar Hajra v. State of West Bengal & 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

Sudarshan Kumar Sudhanshu Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Asharam Dubey Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Subhasis Mondal Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mamtaj Ali Ahmed Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Indu Bhusan Roy Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Saugata Das & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.