Sakunti Devi vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3397 Cal

    102
14.06.2022

Ct. No.23 pg.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

WPA 9285 of 2022

Sakunti Devi Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Jamiruddin Khan Ms. Jayanti Sengupta ... For the petitioner

Mr. Niladri Bhattacharjee Ms. Deblina Chattaraj Mr. Rohan Chatterjee ... For the WBTC

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on

record.

The petitioner's husband was an employee of

Calcutta Tramways Company (1978) Ltd. now known as

West Bengal Transport Corporation Limited (in short

"WBTC") who died while in employment on 25th October,

2012. The petitioner claims interest on delayed payment of

benefits under the Revision of Pay and Allowance Rules,

1998 (in short "ROPA 1998") which is applicable to her

deceased husband. The petitioner's husband during his

life time did not claim the interest on delayed payment.

The cause, if any, to claim interest arose on 2008 when the

delay in paying the benefit occurred. Although the

petitioner's cause to claim may have accrued after the

death of her husband on 25th October, 2012 but the long

delay disentitles the petitioner from claiming interest. The

petitioner has approached this Court only on 19th May,

2022 to claim interest on delayed payment.

The issue sought to be raised in the instant writ

petition is squarely covered by a recent judgment and

order of this Court dated 14th September, 2021 passed in

WPA 7490 of 2021 (Vivekananda Halder & Ors. v. The

State of West Bengal & Ors.).

The enormous delay in approaching the Court,

however, disentitles the petitioner from claiming interest.

Nothing has been pleaded to show that the petitioner's

claim is a continuing cause. In absence of the same the

writ petition is liable to be dismissed for long delay and

laches on the part of the petitioner in view of the ratio laid

down in 2008 (8) SCC 648 (Union of India And Others vs.

Tersem Singh) and 2016 (13) SCC 797 (Asger Ibrahim

Amin vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India) which

according to me is applicable in this case.

The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of

necessary formalities.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)