(1) HEARD the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the parties.

(2) THE instant writ application, as well as several hundred other writ applications have been filed before this Court, primarily seeking order for giving mandatory directions upon the concerned State respondents to release payment of interest on account of delayed release of payment of retiral dues. The common thread in the several hundred writ petitions filed before this Court, which links them with the instant writ petition, is in respect of non-payment of interest, on delayed release of payment of their retiral dues in the form of gratuity. The admitted position being, retiral dues having been already released and payments already made by the State respondents to the writ petitioners.

(3) IN the instant writ petition, a writ inter alia in the nature of mandamus has been sought for, directing the respondents to disburse the interest amount towards gratuity amount, from the date of retirement of the petitioner till the date of actual payment along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(4) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, this High Court has passed several orders of similar nature directing the State authorities, in identical fact situation, to pay interest for delayed payment of gratuity, etc. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that this Court may also pass an order similar to the orders passed earlier by this Court. In this regard, the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on a Judgment and order of this Court in the case of Atul Chandra Mahata v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. , delivered on 27th November, 2003, reported in 2004 (1) CLJ (Cal) 191. Apart from this Judgment and order, the learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon several other Judgments and orders passed by this Court, which have mainly followed the case of Atul Chandra Mahata, cited supra, and issued direction upon the State authorities for payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity.

(5) SINCE there have been several hundred such orders, I do not wish to give reference of each and every such order passed by this Court, save and except a few, for the purpose of record. They are as follows: 1]. W. P. No. 21145 (W) of 2004 Achyutananda Mondal v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. Order dated 11th January, 2005. 2]. W. P. No. l9704 (W) of 2004 hari Kinkar Goswamiv. The State of West Bengal and Ors. Order dated 21st December, 2004. 3]. W. P. No. l9433 (W) of 2005 santosh Kr. Dey v. The State of West Bengal Ors. Order dated 5th December, 2005. 4]. W. P. No. 2834 (W) of 2005 sunil Kr. Dey v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. Order dated 17th August, 2005. 5]. W. P. No. 6258 (W) of 2006 sanatan Das v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. Order dated 23rd March, 2006. 6]. W. P. No. 20931 (W) of 2005 swapan Kr. Maiti v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. Order dated 25th November, 2005. 7]. W. P. No. l7792 (W) of 2005 gunadhar Bag v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. Order dated 28th September, 2005. 8]. W. P. No. l8314 (W) of 2005 indrajit Biswas v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. Order dated 28th September, 2005.

(6) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in identical fact situation, this Court had entertained the aforementioned writ applications and passed such orders. Hence, he submits that a similar order may also be passed in the facts of the instant case.

(7) THE instant writ application as well as the several hundred other writ applications appearing in my list have been opposed by the learned advocates representing the State, primarily on three grounds. They are:-i) Inordinate delay and laches in filing the writ applications; ii) Article 14 cannot be made applicable in a negative context; iii) The earlier orders passed by this Court, being per-incurium. and passed sub-silentio, not having taken the applicable Pension scheme into consideration.

(8) BEFORE I take into consideration the respective submissions made b