Tulsi Bala Saw v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

08.12.2025 Sl. No.8 Ct. No.14 ss

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 21791 of 2025 Tulsi Bala Saw

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Ms. Sudipta Maiti ...for the Petitioner.

Ms. Sreyasree Choudhury ...for the State.

1.

Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

2.

By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks for direction upon respondent authorities for disbursement of interest amount on arrear pension. 3.

The petitioner contends that her husband namely, Santosh Kumar Saw was an Assistant Teacher at Joteghanashyam Special Primary School at P.O. Joteghanashyam, Districty Paschim Medinipur. The petitioner's husband retired from service on 31st March, 1978 and expired on 4th July, 1981. The petitioner's husband duly filled up the pension booklet, however, no pension and pensionary benefit were allowed in favour of the petitioner's husband. After demise of the employee the family pension was granted in favour of the petitioner vide pension payment order dated 27th March, 2012 with effect from 1st April, 1981.

The petitioner has received the arrear of pension, however, no interest has been paid on such arrear pension. Hence, this writ petition.

4.

Ms. Sudipta Maiti, learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks for necessary order directing the respondent authorities for disbursement of interest on the arrear of pension.

5.

Despite service none appears on behalf of the State respondents.

6.

Ms. Sreyasree Choudhury, learned Advocate, who usually appears on behalf of the State-respondents is requested to appear in this matter. The appearance of Ms. Choudhury be regularised by the concerned authority.

7.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the writ petition along with its annexure upon Ms. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the Staterespondents. 8.

Ms. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the State leaves the matter to the discretion of this Court.

9.

Admittedly, the family pension has been issued in favour of the petitioner on 23rd March, 2012 with effect from 1st April, 1981. It is the bounden duty of the State to release pensionary benefits on the due date. If it has failed to do so, it is obliged to pay interest on such amount. It is not in dispute that interest on arrear pension has not been paid in favour of the petitioner.

10. In view of the aforesaid, the respondent No.2, the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance and respondent No.3, the Treasury Officer, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur are directed to pay the interest @ 8% per annum on the amount of pensionary benefits and arrear pension in favour of the petitioner on and from 15th June, 1990 till the date of actual payment, as expeditiously as possible.

11. Petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondent No.2, the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance and respondent No.3, the Treasury Officer, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur for necessary action.

12. With the above direction, the writ petition being WPA 21791 of 2025 stands disposed of.

13. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted.

14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

15. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.

16. There shall be no order as to costs.

17. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

18. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)