Tripura High Court
Tripura University (A Central ... vs Prof. Dr. Kamalakanta Sharma And 3 ... on 13 December, 2021
Page - 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No. 449 of 2020
Tripura University (A Central University)
............... Appellant(s).
Vs.
Prof. Dr. Kamalakanta Sharma and 3 others.
............... Respondent(s).
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Biswanath Majumder, CGC
Prof. Dr. Kamalakanta Sharma.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
ORDER
13/12/2021
(Indrajit Mahanty, C.J.)
Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel for the appellant as well
as Prof. Dr. Kamalakanta Sharma, private respondent in person and Mr.
Biswanath Majumder, learned CGC for the respondents No.2 to 4.
[2] The present writ appeal has come to be filed seeking to
challenge a judgment and order dated 20.10.2020 passed in W.P(C)
No.1361 of 2019 by which order this Court while coming to hold that the
prayer made by the respondent (writ petitioner) were hopelessly barred by
delay and latches in para-11 came to the following findings:
"11. None of the principal claims of the petitioner can,
therefore, be allowed. However, there is one aspect which
still remains to be examined and that is of delay in
releasing his post retiral benefits such as, leave
Page - 2 of 5
encashment, gratuity and payable pension. As noted, a sum
of Rs.51,62,074/- was paid to the petitioner on 01.10.2019
whereas he retired as far back as on 31.03.2007. In the
communication dated 09.07.2019 the Vice Chancellor, as
noted above, had stated that an offer for payment of such
dues was made under letter dated 09.07.2010 but no such
letter is produced on record. I am sure there is a
typographical error and the correct date of the
communication may be 09.07.2019. In the affidavit in reply,
the University has stated that the such dues were
sanctioned on 26.9.2019. In any case, there is no
explanation why the petitioner was not earlier paid such
post retirement benefits. The petitioner may be agitating his
various claims of higher retirement age or higher pension
under CCS (Pension) Rules. Whether his claims were
justified or not is not important. The University on its own
ought to have released his legitimate dues which according
to the University he was entitled to. Merely because the
petitioner was clamouring for higher benefits, would not
permit the University to withhold his such post retiral
benefits which even according to the University were
payable to him. These benefits were not in the nature of
mutually exclusive claims. Pendency of the litigation
initiated by the petitioner, therefore, cannot be the ground
on which the University could have withheld such dues.
Claim for interest may not have been specifically made in
the petition, however, it is consequential in nature. The
University, therefore, must pay interest on such delayed
payment. The petitioner retired w.e.f. 31.03.2007.
Considering three months of period as reasonable for
clearing all such dues, the respondents shall pay simple
interest @ 7% per annum on the said sum of Rs.51,62,074/-
from 01.07.2007 till payment i.e. 01.10.2019. Such amount
shall be paid over within a period of 4(four) weeks from
today. Rest of the claims of the petitioner are rejected."
[3] Challenging the aforesaid direction for payment of interest, the
present appeal has come to be filed. Along with the present appeal an I.A has
come to be filed by the appellant purportedly bringing on record a
communication dated 09.07.2019 addressed to the private respondent
informing him that various amounts were due and payable to him and
requesting him to come and collect the cheque from the cash section of the
Page - 3 of 5
finance branch of the University on any working day and also calling upon
him to furnish his bank account number and other relevant details for
payment of monthly pension through RTGS mode of fund transfer.
[4] In the impugned order as quoted hereinabove, the Hon,ble
Single Judge had taken note of the fact that the alleged offer for payment of
such dues made under letter dated 09.07.2010 was not produced on record
and thereafter went on to assume that the stand of the University was in
essence due to a typographical error.
However, the attempt was made by the appellant to bring the
said document on record in order to try and establish before this Court that
even though an offer of payment was made to the writ petitioner (private
respondent), he failed to come and collect the payment, sign the pension
papers and, therefore, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Single Judge
directing payment of interest ought to be deleted.
[5] We have perused the impugned judgment and we find that
admittedly, a total sum of Rs.51,62,074/- was paid to the writ petitioner on
01.10.2019. A query was made to the learned respondent appearing in
person as to which manner the aforesaid amount was paid to him. In
response, he stated that the said amount was deposited by the appellant-
University in his bank accountt. This fact alone establishes the issue that if
such recourse could be adopted by the University on 08.10.2019, there was
Page - 4 of 5
no justification whatsoever in retaining any amount due to the private
respondent towards arrear salary etc. including pension for such a long
period of time. Admittedly, the private respondent retired as early as on
31.03.2007 and the appellant University took more than 12 years to effect
the said payment.
[6] Consequently, we are of the considered view that retention of
the amount due to the writ petitioner (private respondent) for such a long
period of time was unacceptable and obviously caused financial loss to the
private respondent. This formed the foundation and/or the basis for the
Hon'ble Single Judge for directing payment of interest at the rate of 7% per
annum on the sum of Rs.51,62,074/- from 01.07.2007 till payment i.e.
01.10.2019. We find the aforesaid direction passed by the Hon'ble Single
Judge to be absolutely judicious and absolutely necessary to meet the ends of
justice and accordingly, find no merit in the present appeal and accordingly
direct dismissal of this appeal. We further observed that admittedly till date
the interest as directed by the Hon'ble Single Judge has not been paid. We
therefore, grant the University further 4(four) weeks time to effect payment
of the interest as directed by the Hon'ble Single Judge and we make it clear
that if the interest is not paid to the private respondent within the period as
directed, the University shall be called upon to pay further interest up to the
date of actual payment at the rate stipulated by the Hon'ble Single Judge.
Page - 5 of 5
[7] In terms of the above, the appeal stands dismissed and the case
is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Dipankar
