Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Malay Kumar Mandal vs West Bengal State Electricity on 19 July, 2022
14 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
19.07.2022 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
sb
Ct 23 APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 12521 of 2022
Malay Kumar Mandal
Vs.
West Bengal State Electricity
Distribution Company Limited & Ors.
Mr. Bikash Shaw
.... For the petitioner.
Mr. Sumit Panja,
Mr. Sumit Ray
... For WBSEDCL
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on
record.
The petitioner was initially an employee of West
Bengal State Electricity Board (in short, WBSEB). After
bifurcation of WBSEB the petitioner became an employee
of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company
Limited (in short WBSEDCL) and retired therefrom on
attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31st
October, 2020. The petitioner was paid his retiral
benefits in phases at a belated stage. Rs.20 lakhs was
paid on 10th May, 2021 (as gratuity). On 3rd May, 2021
and 2nd July, 2021 he was paid as arrears of pension
respectively a sum of Rs.3,57,750/- and 62,733/-. The
petitioner is claiming interest for delayed payment of his
retiral dues.
On behalf of WBSEDCL, it is submitted that the
2
petitioner had issued a "no dues" certificate while he
received the principal sum. The petitioner therefor is not
entitled to any interest for the delayed payment. After
having issued "no dues" certificate, the petitioner has
waived his right or is estopped from claiming any interest
for delayed payment. It is further submitted by
WBSEDCL that in respect of some assignment given to
the petitioner during his service tenure some enquiry is
going on and, as such, the delay occurred for which
WBSEDCL as an employer cannot be held responsible.
The fact remains that the date of superannuation is
admitted. So as the dates on which the retiral benefits
have been paid to the petitioner. No show-cause notice in
contemplation of initiating a disciplinary proceedings had
been issued against the petitioner prior to his retirement.
No disciplinary proceedings has also initiated against the
petitioner. On the contrary, despite there being an
enquiry in respect of some assignment given to the
petitioner during his service tenure as submitted by
WBSEDCL, the petitioner was paid his retiral benefits. If
the issue was so serious as sought to be projected by
WBSEDCL the principal sum should have been kept
withheld which is not in the instant case. The matter is,
therefor, not required to be heard on affidavits as there is
no disputed question of fact. In absence of the petitioner
being proceeded with in any manner whatsoever, it was
the obligation of WBSEDCL to pay the retiral benefits to
3
the petitioner at the earliest. Having not done so,
WBSEDCL as an employer has become liable to
compensate the petitioner on the ground that the
petitioner was deprived of the money on account of his
retiral benefits for the delayed period and the money
remained with WBSEDCL by paying interest. "no dues"
certificate was required to be issued by the petitioner to
receive the payment. A retired person like the petitioner,
if is made to sign a "no dues" certificate as a pre-
condition for releasing his retiral benefits cannot be
accused of having waived his right to claim interest or
being estopped from claiming interest for the delay in
paying his retiral dues once he has issued the "no dues"
or "no claims" certificate. The super bargaining power of
the employer to impose a condition to issue discharge
voucher with "no dues" or "no claims" cannot be
overlooked. A retired employee like the petitioner does
not have the strength to deny the issuance of "no dues"
certificate as he is in necessity to receive the retiral
benefits to live with dignity.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I direct
WBSEDCL to pay interest on the retiral dues which was
paid belatedly from 1st November, 2020 till the actual
payment of such amount at the rate of 6 per cent per
annum. The interest has to be paid by 22nd August,
2022, failing which the interest rate will increase and
stand at the rate of 10 per cent per annum being the rate
4
of interest payable in respect of delay in paying gratuity.
The petitioner's right to claim interest finds support in
the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgment reported in (2022) 4 SCC 627 (Dr. A. Selvaraj
vs. C.B.M. College & Ors.). The rate of interest allowed is
fair and reasonable in view of the ratio laid down in the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2021) 11
SCC 543 (State of Andhra Pradesh and Another vs.
Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari).
Nothing further remains to be adjudicated in this
writ petition. The same is disposed of accordingly without
any order as to costs.
Since I have not called for any affidavits,
allegation made in the writ petition are deemed to
have not been admitted by the respondents.
All parties, including the officials of WBSEDCL,
responsible for making payment by carrying out the
direction given in this order shall act on the basis of the
copy of this order duly down loaded from the official
website of this Court without insisting upon production
of certified copy thereof.
Although, WBSEDCL is represented and this order
is passed in their presence for which no further notice is
required yet for abundant caution, the petitioner may
serve a server copy of this order upon WBSEDCL.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of
necessary formalities.
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)
