Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 506 (CAL)

Gita Maity v. State of West Bengal

2019-04-18

ABHIJIT GANGOPADHYAY

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The husband of the petitioner was a Teacher of a Primary School in the District of the then Medinipur who died on 12th August, 1969. The writ petitioner has filed this writ application claiming interest on the delayed payment of family pension. 2. The petitioner case is that her family pension was granted on 31st January 2012 under G.O. No. 539-SE (P&B) dated 01.11.2010. Her husband worked in the School for five years seven months eight days. By the Pension Payment Order she got an amount of Rs. 5,24,674.00/- (Rupees five lakh twenty four thousand six hundred seventy four only). She has claimed interest from the year 1981 for which, according to her, she made appeal time and again but no interest has been paid to her till date. Now, he is aged and infirm and suffering from different types of ailment cannot even work freely and somehow pending her days. By one representation dated May 16, 2016 ventilating the above grievances she claimed the interest. The writ application has been filed on 6th July 2018. 3. In this case the respondent No.3 being the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education) [D.I. (P.E.), in short hereafter] Paschim Medinipur has filed affidavit-in-opposition giving some necessary particulars wherefrom the necessary dates are required to be noted. 4. The husband of the petitioner expired on 12th August 1969. 5. On 20th December 2010 she addressed one application for family pension to the DI (P.E.) but it was, as appears from the affidavit-in-opposition, was actually received by the Sub-Inspector of Schools, Dantan South Circle who sent the family pension file of the petitioner to the said DI (P.E.) on 4th March 2011. 6. The DI (P.E.) sent the said file to the Director of Pension Provident Fund and Group Insurance (DPPG in short, hereafter) after more than thirteen months i.e. on April 28, 2011. 7. Dppg sanctioned the family pension on 31st January 2012 which appears both from the annexure of the writ application and also the affidavit-in-opposition. 8. Against the petitioner's claim of paying interest from the year 1981 no reason has been shown either in the writ application or in the representation of the petitioner dated 16th May, 2015 (annexure P-3 of the writ application) as toward it is to be paid from the year 1981. 8. Against the petitioner's claim of paying interest from the year 1981 no reason has been shown either in the writ application or in the representation of the petitioner dated 16th May, 2015 (annexure P-3 of the writ application) as toward it is to be paid from the year 1981. In my view entitlement to get family pension crystallised on 20th December 2010 when she made the application for family pension. This application has been disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition as annexure R-1. 9. I hold that from the date of the petitioner's entitlement i.e. 20th December 2010 she is entitled to delayed payment of family pension till the date of payment i.e. 31 January, 2012. 10. Therefore, I decide that the petitioner is entailed to get family pension to which she has an entitlement, as despite her entitlement to this defunded payment i.e. the family pension has been delayed for quite some time and I decide that the petitioner is entitled to get interest for delayed payment of pension form 20th December, 2010 i.e. the date of her application for family pension to 31st July 2012 @ 7% per annum on the amount paid to her i.e. Rs. 5,24,674.00. 11. I do not find any reason for paying interest form 1981 and no reason has also been disclosed for claiming interest from the year 1981. 12. The petitioner claimed family pension on 20 December, 2010 and she has claimed interest on delayed payment on 16th May, 2015 though five years have passed from the date of her claim for family pension. I do not find any impediment in paying the interest to the petitioners as no third party interest has been created in this respect. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Tarmen Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 has observed that if the issue related to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. 14. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Tarmen Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 has observed that if the issue related to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. 14. I hold that as the family pension is a welfare provision permitted by State, if there is delay on the part of the employee or the spouse of the employee to approach the Court claiming interest on delayed payment of pensionary benefit, the delay per se should not be the ground for rejection of the writ petition as no third party interest will be affected by a direction on the employer to pay interest. The retired employee should get interest for delayed payment of pension or family pension as the case may be a reasonable right. 15. I direct the concerned authority to pay the petitioner interest on delayed payment of family pension at the above mentioned rate @ 7% per annum within a period of six weeks from date. 16. The writ application is allowed to the above extent. No costs.