Pramila Pradhan vs The State Of West Bengal And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1178 Cal

14th March, 2022 (D/L No.15) (SKB)

W.P.A. 4123 of 2022

Pramila Pradhan Versus The State of West Bengal and others

Mr. Satyaranjan Kundu ... for the petitioner.

Affidavit of service is kept on record.

The petitioner's husband was an approved Group-

D staff of a college who retired from service on

31.10.2006 and died on 25.10.2011. The petitioner's

husband had completed all pension-related formalities

prior to his retirement. However, the concerned

authorities delayed and released the gratuity and arrear

pension amount on 10.04.2017. The petitioner herein

seeks interest to be paid on the gratuity and arrear

pension amount for the interim period of delay in receipt

of the gratuity and arrear pension amount. 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. The petitioner relies upon an order in

W.P.17557(W) of 2017 (Narayan Chandra Saha Vs. State

of West Bengal and others) wherein a co-ordinate Bench

had relied upon 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.

In view of the above and after hearing learned

counsel for the petitioner, 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 gratuity and arrear pension amount

calculated from 01.11.2006 till the date of payment.

Such payment is to be made within a period of eight

weeks from the date of communication of this order.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without

any order as to costs.

Since no affidavit is called for, the allegations made

in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be made available to the parties upon

compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)