Dismissed¶33

M/S Supreme Knowledge Foundation Group of Institution v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC18 May 2026MAT/1983/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gratuity interest delayed release; employer liability within 30 days of cessation of employment; Act of 1972; Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act Section 54 review petition; Certificate Case No. 3 of 2024 order dated 29.07.2025; Gratuity Case No. 25/G/2022 order dated 08.08.2023; WPA 22325 of 2025 Single Bench order dated 24.09.2025; earlier WPA 11716 of 2025 order dated 16.06.2025; employee retired 01.03.2016 applied 01.03.2022; condonation of delay CAN 1 of 2025; no interference; appeal dismissed; CAN 2 disposed; no costs; Rajasekhar Mantha J.; Rai Chattopadhyay J.; decided 18.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Sufficient grounds being available, the delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned and CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of. ¶18

M/S Supreme Knowledge Foundation Group of Institution Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the instant appeal (M.A.T. No. 1983 of 2025) ought to be condoned. +2 more

¶14

Court's answer

Sufficient grounds being available, the delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned and CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The liability to pay gratuity under the Act of 1972 is upon the employer and is required to be paid within 30 days of cessation of employment; accordingly, the employer's plea that the employee's own delayed application disentitled him to interest does not stand.

¶29

Key takeaways

The principal argument against the orders allowing gratuity was not challenged before the Appellate Authority.ratio¶29
In the backdrop of the above, the order passed by the Single Bench rejecting the writ petition filed by the employer calls for no interference whatsoever; hence M.A.T. No. 1983 of 2025 stands dismissed.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal (M.A.T. No. 1983 of 2025) by M/s. Supreme Knowledge of Foundation Group of Institutions (employer) against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2025 of a Single Bench in WPA 22325 of 2025, which had rejected the employer's writ petition challenging (i) an order dated 29.07.2025 in Certificate Case No. 3 of 2024 and (ii) an order dated 08.08.2023 in Gratuity Case No. 25/G/2022, concerning interest on delayed release of gratuity to a retired employee. Delay in filing the appeal condoned (CAN 1 of 2025 allowed and disposed of). The Division Bench held that the liability to pay gratuity under the Act of 1972 rests on the employer and is payable within 30 days of cessation of employment; the employee had retired on 01.03.2016 and applied for gratuity on 01.03.2022; the original interest order was never seriously challenged and the principal argument against the gratuity orders was not raised before the Appellate Authority. The Single Bench order was held to call for no interference; the appeal was dismissed, CAN 2 of 2025 disposed of, with no order as to costs. Coram: Rajasekhar Mantha, J. and Rai Chattopadhyay, J. Decided 18.05.2026.

¶1

18.05.2026. Court No. 13 Item No. 41

¶2

¶3

M.A.T. No. 1983 of 2025

¶4

With CAN 1 of 2025 With

¶5

CAN 2 of 2025

¶6

M/s. Supreme Knowledge of Foundation Group of Institutions

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶9

Mr. Lakshman Chandra Halder. Mr. Balaram Patra.

¶10

..for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. Uddipan Banerjee, Mr. S. Samanta.

¶12

..for the respondent no. 4.

¶13

Re: CAN 1 of 2025

¶14

CAN 1 of 2025 has been filed seeking condonation

¶15

of delay in filing the instant appeal.

¶16

Sufficient grounds are available to indicate the

¶17

delay in filing the instant appeal.

¶18

Hence, the delay is condoned.

¶19

Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.

¶20

Re: MAT 1983 of 2025

¶21

The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24^th September, 2025 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in WPA 22325 of 2025.

¶22

The writ petition was filed against an order dated

¶23

29^th July, 2025 in Certificate Case No. 3 of 2024 and

¶24

¶25

an order dated 8^th August, 2023 in Gratuity Case No. 25/G/2022.

¶26

By an earlier order dated 16^th June, 2025, an earlier writ petition being WPA 11716 of 2025 directed the Certificate Officer to dispose of the review petition under Section 54 of the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act. In terms of the said order dated 16^th June, 2025, the Certificate Officer had passed an order dated 29^th July, 2025 which has been set out in paragraph no. 5 of the impugned order.

¶27

Admitted position is that the original order directing payment of interest for delayed released of gratuity to the employee concerned was never seriously challenged. The private respondent/employee retired on 1^st March, 2016 and applied for gratuity on 1^st March, 2022.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant/employer would argue that since the employee himself delayed applying for gratuity and the employer made payment immediately upon such application, the employee was not entitled to interest.

¶29

This Court, however, notes that the liability to pay gratuity under the Act of 1972, is upon the employer and is required to be paid within 30 days of cessation of employment. The principal argument against the orders allowing gratuity in any event have not been challenged before the Appellate Authority. An

¶30

¶31

order passed in a certificate proceedings that were subject matter of the proceeding for the Single Bench.

¶32

In the backdrop of the above, the order passed by the Single Bench rejecting the writ petition filed by the employer challenging orders of the first authority or the Certificate Officer, calls for no interference whatsoever.

¶33