Manik Lal Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2926 Cal

   122
17.05.2022
 Ct. No.23
     pg.


                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                              APPELLATE SIDE

                                WPA 7049 of 2022

                                 Manik Lal Mondal
                                        Vs.
                          The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                    Mr. Susanta Pal
                    Ms. Susnita Saha
                               ... For the State

                    Ms. Deblina Chattaraj, led by
                    Mr. Niladri Bhattacharjee
                                 ... For WBTC


                    The petitioner remained unrepresented even at the

             time of second call on 10th May, 2022 and, as such, the

             matter was adjourned till today. The petitioner remains

             unrepresented even at the second call today.


                    After going through the records and hearing the

             respondents, I find that the petitioner is claiming interest

for delay in paying the benefits of the Revision of Pay and

Allowance Rules, 1998 (in short "ROPA 1998") on and

from 1st April, 1997 till actual disbursement. It appears

from the writ petition that the writ petitioner retired from

services on 31st October, 2014.

By a Government Resolution bearing no.1183-F

dated 27th November, 1995 read with the Resolution

no.11833-F dated 27th November, 1995, a Pay

Commission was constituted for examining the structure

of emoluments and other conditions of service of member

of State Government Undertakings, statutory bodies,

corporations etc. and for making suitable

recommendation. The Pay Commission submitted its

recommendation which was accepted by the Government

of West Bengal, Transport Department, by a

memorandum dated 23rd June, 2000. This was followed

by a memorandum dated 21st July, 2000, issued by the

Calcutta Tramways Company (1978) Limited (in short

"CTC") now known as West Bengal Transport Corporation

Limited (in short "WBTC"). Under the two memoranda

respectively dated 23rd June, 2000 and 21st July, 2000,

the State Government as also CTC had agreed to pay the

arrears for the period from 1st April, 1997 to 31st March,

2000 in five annual instalments, the first of which being

payable not before 1st November, 2002 along with interest

to be calculated from 1st April, 2000. The petitioner,

therefor, was to get the arrears from 1st April, 1997 to 31st

March, 2000 in five annual instalments. The principal

sum along with the interest as per the two memoranda

had been paid to the petitioner but much after the

scheduled date. The petitioner is claiming interest for the

delayed payment between the scheduled date and the

actual date of payment.

Even taking a very lenient view, the cause of

action, if any, to claim interest accrued in favour of the

petitioner on the date the delayed payments were made.

This, at the highest, continued till the date of his

retirement when he was supposed to receive full and final

payment of his dues, including the interest. The petitioner

has retired from service on 31st October, 2014 and has

filed the instant writ petition on 19th April, 2022. There

has been an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner

in approaching the Court as the writ petition has been

filed after about eight years. It also does not appear either

from the pleading or otherwise that there is any

continuing wrong which takes the petitioner's case

outside the purview of long delay in terms of the ratio laid

down in Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh, reported

in (2008) 8 SCC 648 as followed in the judgment of Asger

Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India,

reported in (2016) 13 SCC 797. On the contrary, the

petitioner's case come within the ratio laid down in

Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree

Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, reported in AIR 1959

SC 798. The issue of promissory estoppel is also not

applicable in the instant case in view of the provisions

laid down in the judgment reported in (2016) 10 SCC 77

(State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajesh Chander

Sood & Ors.).

The writ petition is, therefor, dismissed on the

ground of inordinate delay and laches on behalf of the

petitioner.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

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

necessary formalities.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)