SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Cal) 240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE, J.
Sandhya Rani Das - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 29418(W) of 2017
Decided On : 08-01-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sreyasree Choudhury, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Khairul Alam, Advocate.

Delayed payment of pensionary benefits warrants payment of interest as compensatory measure, and the Limitation Act does not apply to writ petitions concerning payment or refixation of pay or pension.

Headnote:

Pensionary Benefits - Delayed Payment - Interest

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's husband, an Assistant Teacher, died in harness. The petitioner sought interest on delayed payment of pensionary benefit, which was issued after a significant delay.

Finding of the Court:

The court emphasized the importance of timely release of pensionary benefits and the entitlement of retired employees or legal heirs to receive such benefits without delay. It held that interest should be paid as compensation for delayed payment, and directed the Treasury Officer to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 9% per annum from June 15, 1990 till the date of issuance of Pension Payment Order.

Issues: Delay in releasing pensionary benefits, entitlement to interest on delayed payment, and application of the Limitation Act to writ petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that delayed payment of pensionary benefits warrants payment of interest as compensation, and clarified that the Limitation Act does not apply to writ petitions concerning payment or refixation of pay or pension.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the payment of interest at a specified rate and within a stipulated timeframe, without ordering costs.

JUDGMENT :

1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record.

2. The material facts of the case are admitted and hence I have not called for affidavits.

3. The husband of the petitioner was the Assistant Teacher of a Primary School and died in harness on 17.12.1970. The pension payment order was issued on 4.05.2011. The petitioner approached the concerned authority for payment of interest on the delayed payment of pension. Being unsuccessful, the petitioner has approached this Court. In this writ petition she prays for interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefit.

4. It is now well settled that if there is a delay in releasing the pensionary benefits to a retired employee or to the legal heir of a deceased employee, some amount of interest should be paid to compensate for the delay in releasing the benefits. The pensionary benefits are welfare measures meant to enable a retired employee or the dependants of a deceased employee to live a life of dignity. Hence, it is imperative and of utmost importance that such benefits are released to a retired employee or the legal heir of a deceased employee without any delay. If there is delay, interest at a reasonable rate is payable by way of compensation. This is not punitive but purely compensatory.

5. 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 v. 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, pensionary benefits are no more considered to be a bounty to be handed out by the State at its whim. An employee has a right to receive such benefits upon retirement. If payment of such benefits is delayed, the retired employee is surely entitled to get some interest for such delayed payment.

6. 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 pensionary benefits on the due date. If 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 pensionary benefits, 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 pensionary benefits by paying interest at a reasonable rate.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to a Memorandum dated November 1, 2010 issued by the School Education Department, Budget Branch, Government of West Bengal. The said Memorandum pertains to pension/family pension in respect of the employees who retired or died-in-harness prior to April 1, 1981. Paragraph 4 of the said Memorandum provides inter alia, that the financial benefit may be given with effect from June 15, 1990 or from the date of application for pension/family pension whichever is lat







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top