The General Manager vs Sri Binayak Mandal & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 7189 Cal

Item No.7.
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                APPELLATE SIDE


                               HEARD ON: 29.09.2022

                            DELIVERED ON:29.09.2022

                                    CORAM:

                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
                                      AND
             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA


                               F.M.A. No.704 of 2018
                                       With
             I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2017 (Old CAN 5192 of 2017) (not found)


                         The General Manager, UCO Bank
                                       Vs.
                            Sri Binayak Mandal & Anr.


Appearance:-
Mr. Susanta Pal,
Mr. Sudeep Pal Chowdhury,
Ms. Diya Nandi                                 .....     for the appellant.

Mr. Sujit Lal Sircar                     ....           for the respondent no.1.


                                   JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)

1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated

17th February, 2017 in W.P. No.27743(W) of 2015. The appellant

is the UCO Bank, which had filed the writ petition challenging

the order passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of

Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, "the Act"), which affirmed the

order passed by the controlling authority dated 21st January,

2013 granting interim on the delayed payment of gratuity. The

respondent no.1 is a retired employee of the appellant / bank

having retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th

June, 2011. Two days prior to his retirement, on 28 th June,

2011, he was issued a charge sheet alleging certain

irregularities, which are said to have been taken place between

November 12, 2007 and 30th April, 2008 and the disciplinary

proceedings attained finality and minor penalty was imposed.

2. Therefore, the respondent no.1's gratuity amount had been

paid on 6th August, 2013. The respondent no.1 had requested the

bank for payment of interest, which was declined. Therefore, he

had approached the controlling authority under the Act and the

matter was contested by the appellant / bank and by order dated

21st January, 2013, the controlling authority held that the

respondent was entitled for interest. The appellant / bank had

challenged the said order before the appellate authority under

Act, which was rejected by an order dated 24th November, 2014.

Challenging the said order, the present writ petition came to be

filed in the year 2015. The learned Single Bench after taking

note of the facts of the case and also the fact that the

gratuity amount had been settled belatedly only on 6 th August,

2013 and that there was no order passed by the appellant / bank

forfeiting the gratuity amount of the respondent no.1 directed

payment of interest at 10% per annum from the day next to his

retirement to the date of actual payment of gratuity.

3. Taking note of the hard facts, the learned Writ Court also

granted interest on interest @ 6% per annum because the

inordinate delay in settling the interest amount. The appellant

/ bank has not been able to point out any jurisdictional error

committed by the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act,

nor there is any error pointed as regards the decision making

process by the authorities.

4. Therefore, in our view, the learned Writ Court rightly

declined to interfere with the order passed by the authorities

under the Act and we find no grounds to interfere with the said

order. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The

appellant / bank has already deposited Rs.2 lakhs before the

Learned Registrar General in terms of the order passed by the

learned Single Bench on 14th January, 2016 towards the said

claim, which the respondent no.1 shall be entitled to withdraw

along with accrued interest, if any.

5. So far as the amount of interest on interest as directed by

the learned Single Bench to be paid, the same shall be settled

to the respondent no.1 within a period of eight weeks from the

date of receipt of the server copy of this judgment and order.

6. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied

for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance

of all legal formalities.

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J)

I agree,

(SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.)

NAREN/PALLAB(AR.C)