Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nirmala Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 May, 2022
11.05.2022
Ct. 5
D/L 12
ab
WPA 5444 of 2022
Nirmala Ghosh
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sourav Mitra,
Ms. Sreyasree Choudhury
... for the petitioner
Mr. Gourav Das,
Mr. Debapriya Chatterjee,
... for the State
The petitioner has filed an affidavit pursuant to a
direction of the Court explaining the reasons for the
delay in filing the writ petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the State takes an
objection on the ground of delay to the relief being
granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel refers to a
decision of the learned Single Judge, as His Lordship
then was, in Pranesh Chandra Debnath Vs. The State of
West Bengal, where the Court relied on State of M.P. Vs.
Bhailal Bhai, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006 where it
was held that the special remedy under Article 226 of
the Constitution is not intended to completely
supersede the modes of obtaining relief by an action in
a Civil Court. Counsel also refers to an unreported
Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal No. 5239 of
2002 (Dalip Singh Vs. State of U. P.) where the Supreme
Court commented on the effect of suppression of
material facts.
After considering the submissions and taking into
account the decisions on the subject of grant of relief for
post-retirement and other benefits by a writ Court in
Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8
SCC 648, this Court is of the view that the petitioner
cannot be denied the relief on the ground of delay alone.
This aspect was also taken into consideration by the
judgment pronounced by this Court in WPA 6649(W) of
2019 (Padma Nath Vs. State of West Bengal) where it
was held that the right of a writ petitioner to get his/her
retiral dues on the date of attaining superannuation is a
valuable right and a legal duty is cast upon the
concerned authorities to ensure that such right is not
defeated, particularly, where the prayer is for interest
towards delayed payment of gratuity as well as arrear
pension.
The facts of the case as would appear are as
follows:-
The husband of the petitioner was a Darwan of
Pingla Thana Mahavidyalay who retired from
service on 30th April, 2001. The husband of the
petitioner died on 6th January, 2006. The
petitioner had completed all pension-related
formalities. However, the concerned authorities
delayed and released the gratuity as well as
arrear pension on 12th August, 2003. The
petitioner herein seeks interest to be paid for the
interim period of delay in receipt of the gratuity
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 & Ors.) wherein a co-
ordinate bench had relied upon the Supreme
Court judgement 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 inspite
of delay as it does not affect the right of the third
party.
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
gratuity as well as arrear pension amount calculated
from 1st May, 2001 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.
WPA 5444 of 2022 is accordingly disposed of
without, however, any order as to costs.
( Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)
