CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Kalyani Bose vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 3 January 2019 · Citation: (2019) 01 CAL CK 0017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shekhar B. Saraf, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 23973 (W) Of 2018
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 357 words
1.

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

2.

The petitioner was an assistant teacher of a High School, North 24 Parganas who retired on May 31, 2008. She had completed all her pension-related formalities prior to her retirement. However, the concerned authorities delayed and released her gratuity amount and arrear pension on December 30, 2008. The petitioner herein seeks interest to be paid on the gratuity amount and arrear pension for the interim period of delay in receipt of the gratuity amount and arrear pension. 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 V. 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. Tarmen Singh, reported in (2008) 8 S.C.C. 648 on the issue of limitation relating to payment on refixation of pay or pension wherein the Apex Court had held that relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of the third party.

3.

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 and arrear pension calculated from July 1, 2008 till the date of actual payment, that is, December 29, 2008. Such payment is to be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

4.

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

5.

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