AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The material facts of the case are admitted and hence I have not called for affidavits. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of a
Secondary School and he retired from service on February 28, 2007. The first pension payment order was issued on February 19, 2007 and the
gratuity amount and arrear pension was disbursed on May 11, 2007.
Under the ROPA Rules, 2009 there was revision of the pensionary and gratuity amount payable to the petitioner. The revised pension payment order
was issued on May 14, 2012 and the gratuity amount and arrear pension was disbursed on June 30, 2012 in terms of ROPA, 2009. The petitioner
claims interest on delayed payment of the revised gratuity and arrear pension. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I have considered
the orders passed by this court in similar facts. It is settled law that retired employee is entitled to some amount of interest on delayed payment of
gratuity and arrear pension.
Although the point of delay or limitation has not been urged on behalf of the State, I deem it appropriate to address that issue briefly. The Limitation
Act in terms does not apply to writ petitions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Tarmen Singh reported in (2008) 8
SCC 648 has observed that if the issue relates 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.
It is settled law that the right of a retired employee to get his retiral dues on the date of attaining superannuation is a valuable right which accrues in
his favour on the date of his attaining superannuation. Further, gratuity is no more considered to be a bounty to be handed out by the State as its whim.
An employee has a statutory right to receive gratuity upon retirement. If payment of such gratuity is delayed, the retired employee is surely entitled to
get some interest for such delayed payment.
The Rule that the High Court may not enquire into belated and stale claim is not a Rule of Law, but one of practice based on sound and proper
exercise of discretion. The principle on which the relief to a party is denied on the ground of laches or delay is that the right which have accrued to
others by reason of delay in approaching the Court should not be allowed to be disturbed. In the present case, it was the bounden duty of the State to
disburse the gratuity amount on the due date.
It has failed to do so and has released such amount after unexplained delay, it is obliged to pay interest to the retired employee. This is compensatory
in nature. Pension and gratuity are aimed at maintaining the life of a retired employee and his/her dependents, these are welfare provisions and even if
there is delay on the part of a retired employee to approach the Court claiming interest on delayed payment of gratuity, the delay per se should not be
the ground for rejection of the writ petition. No third party interest will be affected by a direction on the State to compensate the retired employee for
delayed payment of gratuity by paying interest at a reasonable rate.
In view of the aforesaid, 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 writ petitioner at the rate of nine percent per annum on the revised gratuity amount as well as revised arrear
pension calculated on and from June 1, 2009 till actual date of payment, that is, June 30, 2012.
Such payment is to be made within eight weeks from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order to the concerned authorities. Since
no affidavits have been invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to be admitted. The writ petition being W. P. No. 25059
(W) of 2017 is, accordingly, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the
parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.