Sk. Rustom Mohammad vs The State Of West Bengal And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2794 Cal

12th March, 2022 (D/L No.14) (SKB)

W.P.A. 8490 of 2022

Sk. Rustom Mohammad Versus The State of West Bengal and others

Ms. Sudipa Biswas ... for the petitioner.

Mr. Ganga Prasad Mukherjee ... for the State.

Affidavit of service is kept on record.

The petitioner was an approved Group-D

staff/Helper of a college who retired from service on

30.06.2006. The petitioner had completed all pension-

related formalities prior to his retirement. However, the

concerned authorities delayed and released the gratuity

and arrear pension amount on 06.05.2018. 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 01.07.2006 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.)