Allowed

Pradip Kumar Bhar v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Calcutta HC2 Mar 2023WPA/5855/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner, a retired employee of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation, is entitled to interest on delayed gratuity. Although a scheme prescribes 6%, the Court enhanced it to 7% due to the respondent's failure to adhere to the scheme.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to pay 7% interest on retiral dues from the date they became due until actual payment.

Pradip Kumar Bhar Vs State of West Bengal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

Form No.J(2)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

Present:

¶4

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

¶5

WPA 5855 of 2012

¶6

Pradip Kumar Bhar Vs.

¶7

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶8

For the petitioner	:	Mr. Susmita Dey (Basu)
For the respondent no.3.	:	Mr. N. C. Bihani
Heard on	:	17.01.2023 & 02.03.2023
Judgment on	:	2^ndMarch, 2023.

¶9

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:

¶10

The present writ application has been filed, inter alia , praying for release of gratuity and leave salary along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent.

¶11

It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner was employed with the Calcutta State Transport Corporation, being the respondent no.3 and joined the service as Assistant Engineer in terms of the appointment letter dated 28^th November, 1974. The petitioner has since superannuated from service on and from 30^th November, 2009. Despite superannuation, since the respondents

¶12

¶13

did not disburse gratuity and leave salary to the petitioner, the

¶14

petitioner was constrained to file the present writ application.

¶15

Ms. Dey (Basu), learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that it is only at the intervention of this Hon’ble Court that both the gratuity and the leave salary, were disbursed in favour of the petitioner on 4^th April, 2013. By drawing attention of this Court to a communication dated 20^th November, 2009, forming part of the writ application, it is submitted that despite the fact that the gratuity had been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, the respondents held back the same. She says ordinarily, gratuity is payable within 30 days from the date of retirement. In the present case the respondents held back the payment of gratuity. She says that the right to receive interest on gratuity is no longer res integra . In support of her contention, she places reliance on the following judgments: -

¶16

1) S. K. Dua v. State of Haryana & Anr ., (2008) 3 SCC 44.

¶17

2) H. Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd ., (2003) 3 SCC 40.

¶18

3) D. D. Tewari (Dead) through Legal Representatives v.

¶19

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors ., (2014) 8 SCC 894 .

¶20

Mr. Bihani, learned advocate representing the respondent no.3 on the other hand submitted that this Hon’ble Court in

¶21

¶22

connection with the another matter, having identified the financial difficulties faced by the respondent no.3, consequent upon implementation of ROPA 2009, had directed the Principal Secretary, Finance Department as also the Principal Secretary, Transport Department to formulate a scheme for payment of the retiral dues of ex-employees of the respondent no.3, who were similarly placed as of the writ petitioner. Such direction had been issued taking into consideration the mounting loss suffered by the respondent no.3 and the failure on the part of the respondent no.3 to meet its financial commitments.

¶23

Drawing attention of this Court to a scheme for the retired employees of the State Transport Undertakings, he submitted that the aforesaid scheme had been formulated (hereinafter referred to as the “said scheme”) pursuant to the aforesaid direction passed by this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that the said scheme in particular, takes into consideration the employees who had retired from service prior to 1^st April, 2015.

¶24

By referring to paragraph 6.2 of the said scheme it is submitted that provisions for payment of interest have already been made in respect of all such retirees who are referred to therein as ‘old retirees’. Mr. Bihani submits as per the said scheme, the petitioner is an old retiree and as such, he is at best entitled to 6 per cent interest on delayed payment of gratuity.

¶25

¶26

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. I am of the view that the petitioner’s entitlement to interest on delayed payment of retiral dues cannot be disputed, as the right to receive interest on account of delayed payment is no longer res integra . The financial inability on the part of the respondent no.3 cannot disentitle the petitioner to receive minimum compensation in the form of interest. I find that the said scheme formulated pursuant to the direction passed by this Court, deals with employees of the State Transport Undertakings which includes the petitioner. The scheme, inter alia, provides for interest, on delayed payment of retiral dues at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.

¶27

Since, this Hon’ble Court has already accepted the aforesaid scheme, I would have ordinarily directed the respondent no.3 to act in terms of the aforesaid scheme and to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, however, considering the fact that the respondent no.3 did not bother to adhere to the aforesaid scheme and held back payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity, I am of the view that the respondent no.3 should be directed to pay interest at the rate of 7 (seven) per cent per annum on the retiral dues, from the date when the same became due up-to the date of actual payment.

¶28