Subhas Chandra Das v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

jks 07.08.2025 WPA 10015 of 2024 Subhas Chandra Das Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Uttam Kumar Roy ... ... for the petitioner Affidavit of service filed in Court today is kept with the record.

The petitioner was appointed as an employee of a Primary School, who retired from service on 30.11.2007. The pension payment order was issued on 10.12.2007. Under the ROPA Rules, 2009 there was revision of the Pensionery and gratuity amount payable to the petitioner. The revised pension payment order was issued on 22.01.2013 and the revised arrear pension amount was disbursed on 16.05.2013 in terms of ROPA Rules, 2009. The petitioner claims interest on delayed payment of the revised 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 of the parties has 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. No. 17557 (W) of 2017 (Narayan Chandra Saha Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) wherein a co-ordinate Bench had relied upon the Supreme Court judgement in the

case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 S.C.C. 648 on the issue of limitation relating to payment or re-fixation 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 the 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 writ petitioner @8% per annum on the revised arrear pension amount calculated from 19.05.2009 till the date of actual 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 disposed of, however, no order as to costs.

Since no affidavit is called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied. The parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)