Calcutta High Court
Swapan Kumar Das vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 20 July, 2022
WPO 2279 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SWAPAN KUMAR DAS
VS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date: 20th July, 2022
Appearance:
Mr. Debdutta Basu, Adv.
...for the petitioner
Mr. Niladri Bhattacharjee, Ms. Deblina Chattaraj, Mr.
Rohan Chatterjee, Advocates for WBTC Ltd.
Mr. Arjun Ray, Ms. Saheli Mukherjee, Advocates
...for the State
The Court : The petitioner retired from the services of Calcutta
Tramways Company (1978) Ltd. (in short, "CTC") now known as West
Bengal Transport Corporation (in short, "WBTC") with effect from 31 st
July, 2019 upon attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner was
paid his retiral benefits which included a sum of Rs.11,04,696/- towards
Provident Fund (in short PF), Rs.5,90,000/- on account of gratuity and a
sum of Rs.5,39,595/- on account of leave salary only on 3 rd and 4th
December, 2019. The petitioner is claiming interest on this sum for
delayed payment thereof. The petitioner was paid an additional sum of
Rs.4,64,350/- towards gratuity on 3 rd March, 2021 in view of the gratuity
amount having increased due to increase in salary arising out of revision
2
of pay. The gratuity amount was computed initially on the basis of
unrevised salary and the additional amount was the difference in
computation on the unrevised salary and that on the basis of revised
salary.
The revision of pay and allowance was made applicable by virtue of a
notification issued by the Government of West Bengal, Finance
Department, Audit Branch on 25 th September, 2019. The revision of pay
and allowance which resulted in increase in the gratuity amount as
aforesaid, therefore, came into effect only on 25 th September, 2019 i.e.
subsequent to the petitioner's retirement which took place on 31 st July,
2019. The notification had a retrospective effect on the salary of the
petitioner which he was receiving prior to his retirement. The effect of
such enhancement has been duly given to the petitioner by paying the
additional amount. However, the petitioner cannot be granted any
interest on the additional sum towards gratuity as there was no delay
attributable to CTC between 1 st August, 2019 and 24th September, 2019,
as the notification was not there. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to
interest on the additional sum on account of gratuity from 25 th
September, 2019 i.e. the date on which the notification came into effect
till actual payment i.e. 3rd March, 2021. The petitioner, however, is
entitled to interest on the aforesaid sum of Rs.22,34,225/- from 1 st
August, 2019 till 2nd December, 2019 for delay in making payment
thereof.
The issue of payment of interest for delay in paying the retiral benefits
have been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment
3
reported in (2022) 4 SCC 627 (Dr. A. Selvaraj v. CBM College & Ors.). In
the instant case, there is no fault on the part of the petitioner for the
delay in paying the retiral benefits as it was the obligation of the employer
to process the payment of retiral benefits and pay the same within one
month from the date of the petitioner's retirement. Since the payment was
not made within one month, the interest will date back to the date
immediately succeeding the date of the petitioner's retirement.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondents are
directed to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 6% per annum of
Rs.22,34,225/- from 1st August, 2019 till 2nd December, 2019. The
respondents shall also pay interest on the sum of Rs.4,64,350/- at the
rate of 6% per annum from 25 th September, 2019 till 2nd March, 2021.
The interest has to be paid within a period of three months from date,
failing which interest on the two separate amounts as aforesaid i.e.
Rs.22,34,255/- and Rs.4,64,350/- will stand increased to 10% per
annum being the rate of interest payable at the present under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for delay in paying the money on such
account.
The rate of interest allowed is fair and reasonable and is at the rate
allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported in
(2021) 11 SCC 543 (State of Andhra Pradesh and another V. Dinavahi
Lakshmi Kameswari).
Nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the matter.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
The parties including the WBTC and its officers shall act on a server
copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court
without insisting upon production of a certified copy thereof.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to
the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)
pa
