Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 778 (CAL)

Kisor Chandra Bhaumik v. State of West Bengal

2014-08-18

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, TAPASH MOOKHERJEE

body2014
Judgment Leave is granted to the learned advocate-on-record of the appellant to rectify the defect in the memorandum of appeal. This mandamus appeal is directed against an order passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 18th December, 2013 in W.P. No. 36717(W) of 2013 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant was dismissed summarily on the ground of delay. The writ petitioner/appellant claimed interest on delayed payment of his gratuity. Since the writ petitioner/appellant did not approach the Writ Court within three years after his retirement, the Learned Trial Judge held that the writ petition was not maintainable. Hence the writ petition was dismissed. The writ petitioner/appellant is thus aggrieved and he has come before this Court with this appeal. Let us now consider as to how far the Learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. Here is the case where we find that the writ petitioner/appellant who was a Head Teacher in a primary school retired from service on superannuation with effect from 31st July, 2009. The first pension payment order was issued on 28th October, 2009. The financial benefit as per the said pension payment order was given to the writ petitioner/appellant immediately after issuance of the same. Subsequently Ropa 2009 came into effect on 19th May, 2009. Thereafter second pension payment order was issued by the concerned authority for giving him the benefit of Ropa 2009. Though Ropa 2009 became effective on 19th May, 2009, but the second pension payment order was issued by the concerned authority on 25th July, 2013. Reason for such inordinate delay in issuing the second pension payment order remains unexplained from the side of the State authority. The financial benefit as per the second pension payment order was given to the writ petitioner/appellant on 22nd October, 2013. Since no interest was paid to the writ petitioner/appellant on delayed payment of gratuity as per the second pension payment order, he approached the Writ Court by filing the writ petition sometime in 2013. Thus we find the cause of action for filing the writ petition for the relief he claimed therein did not mature in the instant case either on the date of his retirement or within three years from the date of his retirement. Thus we find the cause of action for filing the writ petition for the relief he claimed therein did not mature in the instant case either on the date of his retirement or within three years from the date of his retirement. The cause of action for filing the writ petition for the relief claimed therein matured only after the second pension payment order was issued by the concerned authority by acknowledging the State’s liability to pay the benefit of Ropa 2009 to the writ petitioner/appellant. We have mentioned earlier that the second pension payment order was issued on 25th July, 2013 and the instant writ petition was filed sometime in 2013. As such, we cannot hold that the writ petition was filed after any inordinate delay. We cannot concur with the finding of the Learned Trial Judge that the writ petition is not maintainable on account of delay in approaching the writ court for the relief claimed therein. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Learned Trial Judge stands set aside. We hold that the State-respondents have committed illegality in not paying interest on delayed payment of gratuity to the writ petitioner/appellant for the period during which the payment of admissible gratuity was withheld by the State-respondents. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal by directing the State-respondents to pay interest @8% per annum on death-cum-retiring gratuity to the writ petitioner/appellant as per the second pension payment order from the date of his retirement i.e. from 31st July, 2009 till the date of payment of financial benefit under Ropa 2009 as per the second pension payment order. Such payment should be made to the writ petitioner/appellant within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The appeal thus stands allowed. Re: CAN 1422 of 2014 In view of disposal of the appeal in the manner as aforesaid, no further order need be passed on the application for interim/appropriate order. The said application being CAN 1422 of 2014 is thus deemed to be disposed of.