Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 461 (CAL)

Govinda Prasad Sinha v. State of West Bengal

2019-04-08

ABHIJIT GANGOPADHYAY

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petitioner is a retired Teacher. After his retirement gratuity amount of Rs. 4,39,315/- (Rupees Four lakh thirty nine thousand three hundred fifteen only) was paid to him on 01.08.2014. The petitioner retired on superannuation on and from January 31, 2008 from the School. As no interest was paid to him because of the delayed payment of gratuity he made one representation before the Director, Pension, provident Fund & Group Insurance Government of West Bengal (Director, in short, hereafter) on 30.06.2016 making prayer for interest on gratuity on the ground of delayed payment. 2. When no action was taken in respect of his said representation dated June 30, 2016 he filed one writ application being W.P. No.17012(W) of 2016 (Govind Prasad Sinha versus The State of West Bengal & Ors). In the said writ application this Court on January 18, 2017 directed the concerned respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated June 30, 2016 to calculate the interest on the delayed payment of gratuity in accordance with law at the prevalent bank rate of interest and to pay the same in favour of the petitioner if the same had not been paid by that time and if the petitioner was eligible for the said benefit and if there is no legal impediment. Such consideration was to be made by the concerned respondent by three months from the date of furnishing certified copy of the order. 3. Subsequently, pursuant to the said order of this Court dated January 18, 2017 a payment of Rs.1,95,321/- was made in favour of the petitioner from the office of Additional Treasury Officer of Asansol Treasury-I in the petitioner's bank account. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner's representation dated June 30,2016 was considered pursuant to the Hon'ble Court's order in W.P. 17012 (W) of 2016 by the Director on March 22, 2017. The order in respect of the said hearing dated March 22, 2017 was communicated to the petitioner under Memo No. 420/2/1 (3) / DPPG/L 96/17 dated June 15, 2017. In the said order after considering some relevant dates of the matter the Director decided that from the report of the concerned District Inspector of Schools it had transpired that delay for settlement of pension case of the petitioner was not intentional by the Government authority. In the said order after considering some relevant dates of the matter the Director decided that from the report of the concerned District Inspector of Schools it had transpired that delay for settlement of pension case of the petitioner was not intentional by the Government authority. On this ground the said Director passed the order to the effect that claim of the petitioner could not be acceded to and a copy of the said order, as was intimated to the petitioner, was also forwarded for information to the Treasury Officer, Asansol-I. 5. Thereafter, the Additional Treasury Officer (Pension) Asansol Treasury-I wrote a letter to the petitioner being Memo No. 955/Try-I (pen) dated July 26, 2017 which has been made a part of the collective annexure P-2 of the writ application. The content of the said letter is as follows: "Sir, With reference to our letter no.879/Try-I(Pen) dated 14.06.2017 you were informed that a payment of Rs.1,95,321.00 (Rupees one lakh ninety five thousand three hundred twenty one only) has been made in favour of you in pursuance of W.P. No.17012 (W) of 2016 in Calcutta High Court. This office had received an order from D.P.P.G. vide Memo No. 420/2/1 (3) DPPG/L-96/17 dated 15.06.2017 stating that the delay for settlement of the pension was not intentional by the Government Authorities. Thus the claim cannot be acceded to. Hence this office vide Memo No.899 dated 22.06.2017 requested the concerned Branch Manager to refund the said amount. Later the said amount was received by this office. This is for your kind information please. Your co-operation in this regards is highly solicited." 6. By the above letter of the Additional Treasury Officer the concerned Branch Manager of the Bank was requested to refund the said amount and the said amount was refund and later received by the Treasury Office. 7. Such refund of the interest amount (on gratuity) is the grievance ventilated in of the writ application wherein the petitioner has prayed that the interest amount on delayed payment of gratuity is to be paid to him and the order of the Director dated July 15, 2017 is to be quashed and the interest amount is to be disbursed to him in terms of the Government circular dated 21.10.2013. 8. 8. The petitioner has submitted that there was no reason for withdrawal of the said amount of Rs.1,95,321.00 which had been paid to him and has also submitted that the order passed by the said Director is unreasonable, bad in the eye of law and cannot be sustained. 9. Despite direction given by this Court on January 16, 2018 no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the State respondents. Therefore, it is not known to this Court what was the report of the concerned D.I. of Schools wherefrom it had transpired to the said Director that the delay for settlement of the pension case of the petitioner was not intentional by the Government authorities. 10. However, from an order of the Commissioner of School Education West Bengal dated November 25, 2013 in compliance with this Court's order dated December 17, 2012 in W.P. No. 19456 (W) of 2012 (a different writ application filled by the petitioner, Govind Prasad Sinha versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.), which order has been annexed to this writ application, it is found that the petitioner was dismissed from his service as a Teacher with effect from November 29, 2008 as a result of a disciplinary proceeding initiated by his School in respect of which the petitioner ultimately had to file an appeal before the Director of School Education against the order of dismissal and in the said writ application this Court directed the respondent No. 2 therein to dispose of the said appeal within a certain period of time. The order of this court in the writ application was passed on December 17, 2012. From a copy of the order, dated November 25, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of School Education; West Bengal pursuant to this Court's order dated December 17, 2012 it is found that the Commissioner held that dismissal of the writ petitioner from his service just before his superannuation had not been an appropriate action on the part of the School authority. The Commissioner held that a lesser penalty might be appropriate for the ends of Justice and the Commissioner in exercise of the power given to him by G.O. No. 61-Edn (S) dated 23.05.1974 allowed the petitioner of the service benefit including retiral benefit considering him to be in service from the date of his suspension till the date of retirement on superannuation. Apart from the above, other orders were passed by the said Commissioner which has little relevance for the present purpose. But, it is necessary to mention that the Commissioner by his order, instead of dismissal from service imposed a lesser punishment on the petitioner i.e. deduction of three annual increments from the last basic pay of the petitioner while calculating his retirement benefit as penalty for his conduct which was unbecoming of a Teacher. 11. Nobody has intimated this Court that this order of the Commissioner of School Education dated November 25, 2013 was ever challenged and thereby modified or set-aside by any appropriate authority. 12. During the hearing of the matter nobody for the State respondent appeared before me. 13. From the above facts and circumstances I find that as the petitioner was allowed by the Commissioner of School Education all the service benefits including retirement benefit to him as on service from the date of his suspension till the date of retirement on superannuation the petitioner was entitled to full retiral benefits calculated after deduction of the three annual increments from his last basic pay. 14. Though the Director held that the delay for settlement of pension case of the petitioner was not intentional by the Government authorities, the delay can also not be attributable to the petitioner. There is no such finding in the order of the Director dated June 15, 2017 that the delay was attributable to the petitioner. 15. The petitioner cannot be deprived from payment of interest on gratuity for delayed payment of it, as he has not been held responsible for such delay. 16. When no cause of delay for settlement a person pension case can be attributable to him he cannot be penalized for the delay, as it will be illegal and inequitable. As a person cannot take advantage of his own wrong, a person cannot also be penalized for no fault on his part. 17. As the said Director has failed to disclose any reason holding the petitioner responsible for the delay in payment of gratuity, the rationale behind the order and the order itself i.e. the order of the Director as contained Memo No. 420/2/1 (3) DPPG/L-96/17 dated 15.06.2017 cannot be sustained and the same cannot be operative against the petitioner and the said order of the said Director dated June 15, 2017 is set aside and quashed. 18. 18. As a consequence, the letter of the Additional Treasury Officer (pension) of Asansol Treasury-I, contained in Memo No.955/Try-I (Pen) dated 26.07.2017 whereby the request to the concerned Bank to refund the amount of Rs.1,95,321.00 was made is also quashed. There cannot be any refund of the said interest amount. It is to be paid back to the petitioner. 19. The Director of Pension, provident Fund & Group Insurance Government of West Bengal being the respondent No.4 and the Treasury Officer Asansol-I and the Additional Treasury Officer (Pen.) Asansol Treasury-I who issued the said later dated November 26, 2017 are directed to take a concerted effort for payment of the said amount of interest being Rs.1,95,321.00 (Rupees one lakh ninety five thousand three hundred twenty only) to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order. 20. The petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the above named three Government Officers immediately for compliance of this order. 21. The writ application is allowed. No costs.