Calcutta High Court
Shankar Prasad vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 July, 2025
Author: Aniruddha Roy
Bench: Aniruddha Roy
Form No. J(2)
nm
N THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO 358 OF 2025
SHANKAR PRASAD
VS.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
For the petitioner : Mr. Debdutta Basu, Adv.
For the State respondent : Mr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.
Ms. Suman Singh, Adv.
For the respondent nos. 2 to 5 (WBTC) : Mr. Niladri Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Ms. Poulami Chattopadhyay, Adv.
Ms. Sagarika Verma, Adv.
Heard on : July 3, 2025.
Judgment on : July 3, 2025.
ANIRUDDHA ROY,J :
1. The petitioner retired from the services of Calcutta Tramways
Company (1978) Ltd. (in short, "CTC") now known as West Bengal
Transport Corporation (in short, "WBTC") with effect from July 31,
2019 upon attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner was
paid his retiral benefits which included a sum of Rs.25,24,986.99
towards Provident Fund (in short PF). The petitioner is claiming
interest on this sum for delayed payment thereof. The petitioner was
paid an additional sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs)
towards gratuity on March 12, 2021 in view of the gratuity amount
having increased due to increase in salary arising out of revision of
pay. The gratuity amount was computed initially on the basis of
unrevised salary and the additional amount was the difference in
computation on the unrevised salary and that on the basis of
revised salary.
2. The revision of pay and allowance was made applicable by virtue of
a notification issued by the Government of West Bengal, Finance
Department, Audit Branch on September 25, 2019. The revision of
pay and allowance which resulted in increase in the gratuity
amount as aforesaid, therefore, came into effect only on September
25, 2019 i.e. subsequent to the petitioner's retirement which took
place on July 31, 2019. The notification had a retrospective effect on
the salary of the petitioner which he was receiving prior to his
retirement. The effect of such enhancement has been duly given to
the petitioner by paying the additional amount. However, the
petitioner cannot be granted any interest on the additional sum
towards gratuity as there was no delay attributable to CTC between
August 1, 2019 and September 24, 2019, as the notification was not
there. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to interest on the
additional sum on account of gratuity from February, 2020 i.e. the
date on which the notification came into effect till actual payment
i.e. March 12, 2021. The petitioner, however, is entitled to interest
on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 25,24,986.99 from August 1, 2019 till
December 4, 2019 for delay in making payment thereof.
3. The issue of payment of interest for delay in paying the retiral
benefits have been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a
recent judgment reported in (2022) 4 SCC 627 (Dr. A. Selvaraj v.
CBM College & Ors.). In the instant case, there is no fault on the
part of the petitioner for the delay in paying the retiral benefits as it
was the obligation of the employer to process the payment of retiral
benefits and pay the same within one month from the date of the
petitioner's retirement. Since the payment was not made within one
month, the interest will date back to the date immediately
succeeding the date of the petitioner's retirement.
4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondents are
directed to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 6% per
annum of Rs.25,24,986.99 from August 1, 2019 till December 4,
2019. The respondents shall also pay interest on the sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- at the rate of 6% per annum from February, 2020 till
March 12, 2021. The interest has to be paid within a period of three
months from date, failing which interest on the two separate
amounts as aforesaid i.e. Rs. 25,24,986.99 and Rs.2,00,000/- will
stand increased to 10% per annum being the rate of interest
payable at the present under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for
delay in paying the money on such account.
5. The rate of interest allowed is fair and reasonable and is at the rate
allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment
reported in (2021) 11 SCC 543 (State of Andhra Pradesh and
another V. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari).
6. The appropriate State authority is also directed to disburse and
release the fund in favour of the respondent nos. 2 to 5 positively
within a period of five weeks from the date of communication of this
order to enable the respondent nos. 2 to 5 to pay the petitioner in
turn within the time frame mentioned above.
7. Nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the matter.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
9. The parties including the WBTC and its officers shall act on a server
copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court
without insisting upon production of a certified copy thereof.
10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given
to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)
nm
