Sikha Mohanta v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

13th September, W.P.A. 539 of 2019 (BD) Sikha Mohanta -Vs- The State of West Bengal & ors.

Mr. Dabajit Kundu ... For the petitioner.

Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh Mr. Ankan Mitra ... for the State.

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is kept with the record.

The petitioner's husband was a Panchayat Job Assistant of Buraganj Gram Panchayat, who died in harness on 17.11.2009. The petitioner had completed all pension-related formalities after the death of her husband. However, the concerned authorities delayed and released the gratuity amount on 31.04.2011. The petitioner herein seeks interest to be paid on the gratuity amount for the interim period of delay in receipt of the gratuity 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 parties have 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.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 refixation of pay or pension wherein the Apex Court had held that relief may be granted inspite 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 petitioner @ 8% per annum on the gratuity amount calculated from 01.01.2010 till the date of payment. Such payment is to be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

This writ petition is accordingly disposed of without however, any order as to costs.

Since no affidavit is called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied.

(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)