The petitioner cannot be penalized for the delay in payment of gratuity when it was not attributable to him, and is entitled to interest on delayed gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Section 4(1).

JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petitioner is a retired Teacher. After his retirement gratuity amount of Rs. 4,39,315/- (Rupees Four lakh thirty nine thousand three hundred fifteen only) was paid to him on 01.08.2014. The petitioner retired on superannuation on and from January 31, 2008 from the School. As no interest was paid to him because of the delayed payment of gratuity he made one representation before the Director, Pension, provident Fund and Group Insurance Government of West Bengal (Director, in short, hereafter) on 30.06.2016 making prayer for interest on gratuity on the ground of delayed payment.

2. When no action was taken in respect of his said representation dated June 30, 2016 he filed one writ application being W.P. No. 17012 (W) of 2016, Govind Prasad Sinha vs. State of West Bengal and Others. In the said writ application this Court on January 18, 2017 directed the concerned respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated June 30, 2016 to calculate the interest on the delayed payment of gratuity in accordance with law at the prevalent bank rate of interest and to pay the same in favour of the petitioner if the same had not been paid by that time and if the petitioner was eligible for the said benefit and if there is no legal impediment. Such consideration was to be made by the concerned respondent by three months from the date of furnishing certified copy of the order.

3. Subsequently, pursuant to the said order of this Court dated January 18, 2017 a payment of Rs. 1,95,321/- was made in favour of the petitioner from the office of Additional Treasury Officer of Asansol Treasury-I in the petitioner's bank account.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner's representation dated June 30,2016 was considered pursuant to the Hon'ble Court's order in W.P. No. 17012 (W) of 2016 by the Director on March 22, 2017. The order in respect of the said hearing dated March 22, 2017 was communicated to the petitioner under Memo No. 420/2/1(3)/DPPG/L-96/17 dated June 15, 2017. In the said order after considering some relevant dates of the matter the Director decided that from the report of the concerned District Inspector of Schools it had transpired that delay for settlement of pension case of the petitioner was not intentional by the Government authority. On this ground the said Director passed the order to the effect that claim of the petitioner could not be acceded to and a copy of the said order, as was intimated to the petitioner, was also forwarded for information to the Treasury Officer, Asansol-I.

5. Thereafter, the Additional Treasury Officer (Pension) Asansol Treasury-I wrote a letter to the petitioner being Memo No. 955/Try-I (pen) dated July 26, 2017 which has been made a part of the collective annexure P-2 of the writ application. The content of the said letter is as follows:

"Sir,

With reference to our letter no. 879/Try-I(Pen) dated 14.06.2017 you were informed that a payment of Rs. 1,95,321.00 (Rupees one lakh ninety five thousand three hundred twenty one only) has been made in favour of you in pursuance of W.P. No. 17012 (W) of 2016 in Calcutta High Court.

This office had received an order from D.P.P.G. vide Memo No. 420/2/1(3) DPPG/L-96/17 dated 15.06.2017 stating that the delay for settlement of the pension was not intentional by the Government Authorities. Thus the claim cannot be acceded to.

Hence this office vide Memo No. 899 dated 22.06.2017 requested the concerned Branch Manager to refund the said amount. Later the said amount was received by this office.

This is for your kind information please. Your co-operation in this regards is highly solicited."

6. By the above letter of the Additional Treasury Officer the concerned Branch Manager of the Bank was requested to refund the said amount and the said amount was refund and later received by the Treasury Office.

7. Such refund of the interest amount (on gratuity) is the grievance ventilated in of the writ application wherein the petitioner has prayed that the interes