Rose Mary Thapa v. The State Of West Bengal And ORS

11.05.2022 S.B.

Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri WPA 513 of 2022 Rose Mary Thapa -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Debajit Kundu ...for the petitioner Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh Mr. Pretom Das ...for the State Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

The writ petitioner is a retired Assistant teacher, who superannuated on 30th September, 2008. After retirement of the petitioner, Pension Payment Order was issued vide memo dated 4th December, 2012, as per the said Pension Payment Order retiral dues including gratuity were released in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner claims interest on gratuity which has been released belatedly. State respondents are represented by Mr.

Bikramaditya Ghosh, learned Advocate.

The entitlement of the writ petitioner to interest on gratuity due to superannuation has already been decided in the writ petition being W.P.No.4600(W) of (Rabindra Kumar Bhattacharjee vs State of West Bengal and Ors.)

wherein upon placing reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs.

Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 on condoning delay in approaching the Court for payment of interest on gratuity the said writ petition was allowed by extending the benefit on delayed payment of gratuity upon due consideration of the fact that there is no accrual of third party interest and matter relates to payment of retiral dues. Taking note of the observations made by the coordinate Bench in the order dated 17th April, 2019 passed in W.P. No. 4600(W) of 2019 (Rabindra Kumar Bhattacharjee vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.) this Court finds it apposite to grant interest on gratuity to the writ petitioner due to delay in releasing the said amount.

Accordingly, the Director of Pension Provident Fund and Group Insurance and the concerned Treasury Officer are directed to pay interest at the rate of Rs.8% per annum to the writ petitioner on gratuity from the date following the date of retirement of the petitioner till the date of actual disbursement of the gratuity amount, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Since no affidavit is called for, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted.

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.

(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)