26 2021 Satyendra Nath Samai vs 242 The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 584 Cal

Ct.
No.   27.01                       W.P.A. 2016 of 2021
26    2021                           Satyendra Nath Samai
                                               Vs.
242                              The State of West Bengal & Ors.
akb

              Mr. Santip Ghosh             ...For the Petitioner




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

              2.           The petitioner was an 'Assistant Teacher' of a
              School, who retired on 31.01.2007.            The first pension
              payment order was issued on 11.01.2008. Under the ROPA
              Rules, 2009 there was revision of the pensionary and gratuity
              amount payable to the petitioner.          The revised pension
              payment order was issued on 31.5.2012 and the gratuity
              amount was disbursed on 30.8.2012 in terms of ROPA, 2009.
              The petitioner claims interest on delayed payment of the
              gratuity amount.

              3.           I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner
              and I have considered the orders passed by this Court in
              similar facts. It is settled law that retired employee is entitled
              to some amount of interest on delayed payment of arrear
              pension and gratuity.

              4.           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.

              5.           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
                           2




the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India vs.
Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 on 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.

6.             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 01.6.2009 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.

7.             With these observations, the writ petition is
disposed of.

8.             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.

9. There will be no order as to costs.

10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.

( Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)