Disposed¶18

Kashi Nath Roy v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC24 Jun 2026WPO/293/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Original Side), WPO No.293 of 2026 — Kashi Nath Roy v. State of West Bengal & Ors.; delayed release of Provident Fund/retiral dues after superannuation; interest on delayed payment of retirement benefits; statutory right to retiral dues, not a bounty; West Bengal Transport Corporation; simple interest 6% per annum with additional 2% default interest (8% total); Justice Amrita Sinha; order dated 24th June, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Simple interest at 6% per annum on Provident Fund dues calculated on and from the next date of retirement till the date of actual payment, payable within four months from communication of the order; in default, additional simple interest at 2% (total 8%) on Provident Fund dues. ¶18

Kashi Nath Roy Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the retired petitioner is entitled to interest on account of the delay in releasing his Provident Fund dues.

¶12

Court's answer

A retired employee's right to receive retiral dues on attaining superannuation is a valuable right; retiral dues are not a bounty but a statutory entitlement, and delayed payment entitles the retiree to interest.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

It was the bounden duty of the employer to disburse the Provident Fund amount on the due date; having released it after unexplained delay, the employer is obliged to pay interest to the retired employee.

¶15

Key takeaways

The concerned authority of the Corporation and the State respondents are directed to pay the petitioner simple interest at 6% per annum on Provident Fund dues calculated on and from the next date of retirement till the date of actual payment, within four months from communication of the order.ratio¶16
In default of paying interest in terms of the aforesaid direction, the concerned respondent authority shall be liable to pay additional simple interest at 2% (i.e. 6+2=8%) on Provident Fund dues.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPO No.293 of 2026, High Court at Calcutta, Amrita Sinha, J.) by a retired employee of West Bengal Transport Corporation seeking interest on delayed Provident Fund dues: petitioner superannuated on 31st October, 2024; other retiral dues were paid in time but Provident Fund dues were released only on 9th September, 2025. The Court held that retiral dues are a valuable statutory right accruing on the date of superannuation, not a bounty, and that an employer releasing Provident Fund dues after unexplained delay is obliged to pay interest. Simple interest at 6% per annum on Provident Fund dues was directed, calculated on and from the next date of retirement till actual payment, within four months of communication of the order; default attracts additional simple interest at 2% (total 8%). Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

OD-2

¶2

ORDER SHEET

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE

¶4

WPO No.293 of 2026

¶5

KASHI NATH ROY VS

¶6

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

¶7

BEFORE:

¶8

The Hon'ble JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA Date:24^th June, 2026.

¶9

Appearance:Ms. Soumalika Nandan, Adv. …for the Petitioner. Ms. Deblina Lahiri, Adv. Mr. Mrinmoy Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Saptarshi Mondal, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Mr. Marry Dutta, Adv. (VC.) ...for the State. Mr. Suman Majumder, Adv. …for Respondent nos.2 to 5.

¶10

The matter is heard in the presence of the learned advocates representing the petitioner, West Bengal Transport Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’) and the State respondents.

¶11

Learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired on superannuation from the Corporation on 31^st October, 2024. Though other retrial dues were paid to the petitioner within time, but Provident Fund dues were released in favour of the petitioner on 9^th September, 2025.

¶12

The petitioner prays for interest on account of delay in releasing the Provident Fund dues.

¶13

¶14

It is settled law that the right of a retired employee to get his retiral dues on the date of attaining superannuation is a valuable right which accrues in his favour on the date of his attaining superannuation. Retiral dues are no more considered to be a bounty to be handed out by the State at its whim. An employee has a statutory right to receive such payment upon retirement. If payment is delayed, the retired employee is surely entitled to get some interest for such delayed payment.

¶15

In the present case, it was the bounden duty of the employer to disburse the Provident Fund amount on the due date. As the employer has failed to do so and has released such amount after unexplained delay, the employer is obliged to pay interest to the retired employee.

¶16

In view of the above, I direct the concerned authority of the Corporation and the State respondents to pay to the petitioner simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on Provident Fund dues calculated on and from the next date of retirement till the date of actual payment within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order.

¶17

In default of paying interest to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid direction, the concerned respondent authority shall be liable to pay additional simple interest at the rate of 2% i.e. 6+2= 8% on Provident Fund dues.

¶18

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶19

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.

¶20

(AMRITA SINHA, J.)

¶21

Kashi Nath Roy v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashi Nath Roy v. the 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldip Prasad Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Rekha Mukherjee and Anr. Vs Indian Red Cross Society West Bengal State Branch and Anr.

Raju Dey Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rajesh Basfore Vs Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Madhab Chandra Dhar Vs U.B.I. & Ors.

Dilip Kumar Nanda Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.