Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Jay Sengupta, J.
Nisith Ghosh Dastidar - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Others - Respondent
WPA 10324 of 2015
Decided On : 05-09-2022
Interest - Retiral Benefits - The court directed the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the delayed payment of retiral benefits for the period from the date of revision in pay scale to the date of actual payment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner retired and was paid his retiral benefits in the unrevised scale. A revision in the pay scale took place later, and the petitioner was paid the rest of his retiral benefits with delayed payment and no interest. The petitioner sought interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the delayed payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to interest for the delayed payment of retiral benefits in the revised scale, but the interest could only be due from the date of the revision in pay scale to the date of actual payment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to interest for the delayed payment of retiral benefits and from which date the interest should be calculated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a minimum amount of interest would be due to the petitioner for the delayed payment of retiral benefits in the revised scale, but the dues cannot go beyond the date of the new scale's effect.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the sum of money paid to the petitioner belatedly as rest of his retiral benefits for the period from the date of revision in pay scale to the date of actual payment.
JUDGMENT
Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application praying for direction upon the respondents to pay and disburse interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the period from 1st September 2008 to 4th February 2015 for payment of gratuity and leave salary to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted as follows. The petitioner retired from service of the Calcutta Tramways Company (1978) Ltd. on 03.08.2008. Upon superannuation as an Inspector, on 01.10.2008 the petitioner was paid his provident fund amount, gratuity and leave salary amount in the unrevised scale. On 04.02.2015 the petitioner was paid his rest gratuity and leave salary amount by cheque. As no interest was paid for the delayed payment, on 08.04.2015 the petitioner made a representation before the Managing Director of the Calcutta Tramways Company (1978) Ltd. with a request to release interest amount at the rate of 10% for delayed payment of gratuity and leave salary. It was pertinent to mention that the revision in the pay scale was given effect to from 17.09.2009.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 5 submitted as follows. If at all any interest was be payable, it would not be from 01.09.2008 because the revision in pay scale took place only on 17.09.2009. At present, there was a scheme which allowed payment of interest at the rate of 5% per annum.
4. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State adopted the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 5.
5. I heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the writ petition.
6. The undisputed facts in this case are that the petitioner retired from his service with the Calcutta Tramways Company (1978) Ltd. on 03.08.2008. On 01.10.2008 he was paid his provident fund amount, gratuity and leave salary in the unrevised scale. In the meantime there was a revision in the pay scale that was given effect to from 17.09.2009. On 04.02.2015 he was paid his rest gratuity and leave salary amount by cheque. However, no interest was paid on the delayed payment. The petitioner made a representation on 08.04.2015 which went unanswered by the respondents.
7. Money has a present value as well as a future value. The two are balanced by an amount of interest that would be due on a sum as on a particular date. If A is entitled to a sum of money in the year X, then he would obviously be entitled to get some interest on the same if the money is paid to him afterwards i.e., in the year X+1, for instance.
8. Therefore, a minimum amount as interest would be due to the present petitioner for the delayed payment of retiral benefits in the revised scale. At the same time, the dues cannot go beyond 17.09.2009 on which the new scale was given effect too.
9. In view of the above, the respondents 2 to 5 are directed to pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the sum of money paid to the petitioner belatedly as rest of his retiral benefits on 04.02.2015 that is to say, for the period of 17.09.2009 to 04.02.2015. The said payment shall be made as full and final settlement on the issue within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
10. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.
11. Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a minimum amount of interest would be due to the petitioner for the delayed payment of retiral benefits in the revised scale, but the interest....
Employers must timely process and pay retiral benefits, with interest owed for delays established by court precedent.
Retiral benefits, including gratuity and pension, constitute vested property rights under Article 300A; delayed payment breaches the right to livelihood under Article 21, and employers must timely se....
An employee is entitled to claim interest on the belated payment of terminal benefits (leave salary, provident fund, and gratuity) from the date of retirement until the date of actual disbursement.
Employees are entitled to interest on the delayed payment of terminal benefits, such as gratuity and provident fund, from the date of retirement until the actual date of disbursement, at a reasonable....
An employee is entitled to claim interest for the delayed payment of terminal benefits, and where the employer agrees to pay, the court may direct such payment at a reasonable rate (typically 6%) for....
Employees are entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum on terminal benefits that were not disbursed within a reasonable time after retirement.
The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest and the usage of the petitioner's money by the State justified the grant of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits.
An employee is entitled to claim interest on the delayed payment of terminal benefits, including leave salary, provident fund, and gratuity, from the date of retirement until the date of actual disbu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
