Disposed¶13

Basanta Kumar Bera v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC26 Feb 2024WPA/3239/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: retired Assistant Teacher primary school; pension payment order; revised gratuity; ROPA Rules 2019; interest on delayed payment of gratuity; delay in filing writ petition; no statutory limitation; Union of India vs Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648; Narayan Chandra Saha W.P. 17557 (W) of 2017; Director of Pension Provident Fund and Group Insurance Government of West Bengal; Treasury Officer; 8% per annum interest from 19.05.2009; eight weeks; writ petition disposed of; Rajasekhar Mantha, J.

What did the court decide?

Interest @ 8% per annum on the revised gratuity amount calculated on and from 19.05.2009 till the date of actual payment, payable by the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance and the concerned Treasury Officer within eight weeks from communication of the order. ¶13

Basanta Kumar Bera Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed payment of the revised gratuity amount. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal, and the concerned Treasury Officer are directed to pay the petitioner interest @ 8% per annum on the revised gratuity amount calculated on and from 19.05.2009 till the date of actual payment, within eight weeks from communication of the order.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Adopting the rationale of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (via W.P. 17557 (W) of 2017), relief was granted notwithstanding the considerable delay in filing, since such relief does not affect the rights of third parties.

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Retired Assistant Teacher of a Primary School (retired 30.06.2006) sought interest on delayed payment of gratuity revised under ROPA 2019 (revised PPO dated 04.10.2012; revised gratuity disbursed 10.02.2013). Writ petition filed after considerable delay; petitioner justified delay on absence of statutory limitation and absence of prejudice. Drawing on W.P. 17557 (W) of 2017 (Narayan Chandra Saha vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) and therein Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648, the court disposed of the writ petition directing the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal, and the concerned Treasury Officer to pay interest @ 8% per annum on the revised gratuity amount calculated on and from 19.05.2009 till the date of actual payment, within eight weeks of communication of the order. No affidavit-in-opposition was called for; allegations deemed not admitted; no order as to costs.

¶1

26.02.2024 Sl. No.35 pk

¶2

W.P.A. 3239 of 2024

¶3

Basanta Kumar Bera -VsThe State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Mr. B. B. Maity … for the petitioner

¶5

Mr. Mrityunjoy Goswami, Mr. Arijit Sarkar … for the State.

¶6

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

¶7

The petitioner was a Assistant Teacher of a Primary School, who retired on 30.06.2006. The first pension payment order was issued on 04.09.2008. 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 04.10.2012 and the revised grauity amount was disbursed on 10.02.2013 in terms of ROPA, 2019. The petitioner claims interest on delayed payment of the revised gratuity 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

¶10

¶11

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.

¶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 gratuity amount 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.)

Basanta Kumar Bera v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basanta Kumar Bera v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premnath Basak Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Samir Kumar Behera Vs Union of India & Ors.

Amitava Mukhopadhyay Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Bimala Patra Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Lily Jasmin Ara Abedin Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mrs Neeta Kumari Vs Union of India & Anr.