Prodip Kumar Chaudhuri v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC18 Jun 2025WPO/271/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: CPSE pay revision memorandum 03.08.2017; clarificatory memorandum 10.07.2018; gratuity ceiling enhanced to Rs.20 lakh; leave salary; superannuation 31.10.2017; Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd; affordability objection rejected; issue no longer res integra; Mukul Kumar Sengupta FMA/664/2024; Gobinda Lal Basu WPA/7266/2025; Payment of Gratuity Act forum objection; belated petition/fencesitter; interest 8% per annum from 10.07.2018; four-week compliance direction; writ disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Respondent no.3 directed to release gratuity due and payable to the petitioner in terms of memo dated 3rd August, 2017 read with memo dated 10th July, 2018, along with leave salary, within four weeks from date of communication of the order, with interest at 8% per annum from 10th July, 2018 till the date of release. ¶¶25

Prodip Kumar Chaudhuri Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, Deputy General Manager of Bridge & Roof Company (India) Limited who retired on superannuation on 31st October, 2017, is entitled to release of gratuity and leave salary in terms of memorandum dated 3rd August, 2017 read with memorandum dated 10th July, 2018 (which enhanced the gratuity ceiling from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- with effect from 1st January, 2017). +2 more

¶¶10

Court's answer

In view of the Division Bench judgment in Mukul Kumar Sengupta (FMA/664/2024, dated 29.07.2024) and the coordinate Bench judgment in Gobinda Lal Basu (WPA/7266/2025, dated 16.06.2025), the issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res integra.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

This Court finds no impediment in giving directions similar to those in the cited precedents for releasing the outstanding dues towards gratuity and leave salary payable to the petitioner.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

Financial affordability of a company in no way hinders the right of retired officers/employees to get enhanced benefits in terms of the relevant memorandum, where employees working in the company are getting such benefits.ratio¶¶20
Since the petitioner received gratuity in terms of the norms applicable prior to 1st January, 2017, the balance amount of gratuity is required to be paid to him as per memorandum dated 3rd August, 2017.ratio¶¶20
In terms of memoranda dated 3rd August, 2017 and 10th July, 2018, existing employees working in the Company are getting enhanced benefits.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Original Side), WPO/271/2025, decided 18.06.2025 (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.): Writ petition by Prodip Kumar Chaudhuri, retired Deputy General Manager of Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd., for release of gratuity and leave salary in terms of OM dated 03.08.2017 (CPSE pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2017; gratuity ceiling enhanced from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/-, clause 12.1) read with clarificatory OM dated 10.07.2018. Holding the issue no longer res integra in view of the Division Bench decision in Mukul Kumar Sengupta (FMA/664/2024, 29.07.2024) and the coordinate Bench decision in Gobinda Lal Basu (WPA/7266/2025, 16.06.2025), the Court held that financial affordability of the Company cannot hinder a retired employee's right to enhanced benefits where serving employees receive them, and that the balance of gratuity was payable per the 03.08.2017 memo. Respondent no.3 was directed to release gratuity and leave salary within four weeks, with interest at 8% per annum from 10.07.2018 until release; petition disposed of. The Company's objections of belatedness (fencesitter) and recourse to the Payment of Gratuity Act forum were raised but not expressly adjudicated.

¶1

OD-1

¶2

ORDER SHEET

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE

¶4

WPO/271/2025

¶5

PRODIP KUMAR CHAUDHURI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

¶6

BEFORE:

¶7

The Hon’ble JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA Date : 18^th June, 2025.

¶8

Appearance Ms. Ujjaini Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Garima Raijada, Adv. … for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sushovit Dutt Majumder, Adv. Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, Adv. Ms. Mini Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rajehwari Prasad, Adv. ..for the respondent nos. 3-6

¶10

Writ petition is at the instance of Deputy General Manager, Bridge & Roof Company(India) Limited(hereinafter referred to as ‘The Company’), inter alia praying for release of gratuity and leave salary in terms of memorandum dated 3^rd August, 2017 read with subsequent memorandum dated 10^th July, 2018. Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired on superannuation on 31^st October, 2017. Just prior to superannuation of the petitioner Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises Department of public enterprises vide office memo dated 3^rd August, 2017 allowed pay revision of Board level and below Board level executives and non-unionized

¶11

¶12

supervisors of Central Public Sector Enterprises(CPSE) with effect from 1^st January, 2017. The said memo dated 3^rd August, 2017 enhanced the ceiling of gratuity from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- which is provided in clause 12.1. There was a subsequent memo dated 10^th July, 2018 whereby Ministry issued a clarification regarding the affordability of the CPSEs. It is also contended that memo dated 3^rd August, 2017 was given effect to from 1^st January, 2017 which makes the petitioner entitled to receive the benefits in terms of said memorandum taking note of the date of superannuation on 31^st October, 2017.

¶13

It is further submitted that as per norms which was prevalent prior to 1^st January, 2017, petitioner received Rs.10,00,000/towards gratuity.

¶14

In support of the case made out in the writ petition reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench dated 29^th July, 2024 passed on intra Court Appeal in FMA/664/2024

¶15

(Mukul Kumar Sengupta Vs. Union of India & Ors .). It is submitted that the directions of the Hon’ble Division Bench have already been given effect to. In addition thereto, reliance is also placed on the judgment dated 16^th June, 2025 passed by a coordinate Bench on a writ petition being WPA/7266/2025

¶16

(Gobinda Lal Basu & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors .).

¶17

The company is represented by Mr. Soumya Majumder, learned Senior Advocate who opposes the prayer made in the writ petition on the count of affordability of the company and it is

¶18

¶19

also submitted that the petitioner has come before this Court belatedly therefore the petitioner should be termed as fencesitter. In addition thereto, it is contended on behalf of the company that the petitioner ought to have approached the forum under the Payment of Gratuity Act instead of preferring present writ petition.

¶20

Taking note of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Mukul Kumar Sengupta (supra) on 29^th July, 2024 and another judgment dated 16^th June, 2025 passed by the coordinate Bench in Gobinda Lal Basu (supra), it appears that the issue involved in this writ petition is no more res integra Previously, the Court taking note of memorandum dated 3^rd August, 2017 and 10^th July, 2018 directed the company to release enhanced benefits. Therefore, this Court does not find impediment in giving similar directions for releasing outstanding dues towards gratuity and leave salary which is payable to the petitioner. It is well settled that financial affordability of a company in no way hinder the right of a retired officers/employees to get enhanced benefit in terms of relevant memorandum if same applies to such employees/officers when employees working in the company are getting benefits. In the present case, petitioner has received gratuity in terms of the norms which was applicable prior to 1st January, 2017 therefore balance amount of gratuity is required to be paid to the petitioner as per memorandum dated 3^rd August, 2017.

¶21

¶22

Moreover, it does not escape notice of this Court that in terms of memoranda dated 3^rd August, 2017 and 10^th July, 2018 existing employees working in the company are getting enhanced benefits.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid scenario, respondent no.3 is directed to release gratuity which is due and payable to the petitioner in terms of memo dated 3^rd August, 2017 read with memo dated 10^th July, 2018 along with leave salaries within a period of four weeks from date of communication of this order.

¶24

Respondent no.3 is directed to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 10^th July, 2018 till the date of release of such benefits.

¶25

With the aforesaid directions, writ petition being no. WPO/271/2025 stands disposed of.

¶26

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

¶27

(SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

¶28

Prodip Kumar Chaudhuri v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prodip Kumar Chaudhuri v. Union of India 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

Bhakti Bilash Mahato and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Insan Mallick Vs the State of West Bengtal and Ors.

Rina Ray Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Dayamay Bhattacharya Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Pradip Kumar Bhattacharyya Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Naru Gopal Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.