Delay in payment of gratuity entitles the employee to statutory interest, but claims for damages must be substantiated with evidence.

JUDGMENT

S. Talapatra, J. - Heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Majumder, learned ASG appearing for the respondents.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for seeking the reliefs as follows:

(i) The compensation for amount of Rs.10lakhs for harassment and mental agony caused to the petitioner. By making delayed payment of his pension and other retiral benefits pursuing a mala fide departmental proceeding.

(ii) For providing statutory interest against his entitlement or to pay interest in the market rate coupled with penal interest from the date the entitlement were due till the date of payment. Also for the delay in payment of pension including commutation of the pension, and (iii) For payment of an amount of Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

3. Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a departmental proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner malafide. Even after completion of the enquiry, the departmental authority did not take decision for bringing the logical end of the said departmental proceeding. When such deliberate stalemate started causing serious detriment of the petitioner, the petitioner was compelled to approach this court by filing the writ petition being WP(C)550 of 2017.

4. Ms. R. Purkayastha learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that by perusal of the judgment passed in the said writ petition, it would be apparent that the petitioner was charged for not attending the office regularly. That apart, it had beenimputed that the petitioner did not look after the essential works at LCS [Land Custom Station]. He was thus charged with dereliction of duty. The petitioner was further charged for his purported failure to examine/check passengers' luggages during entering or leaving the country. The petitioner was imputed for embezzlement and misappropriation of the government money and some definite instances were referred. His action was questioned as the conduct to defraud the government revenue and causing pecuniary loss to the government. The petitioner denied the charges and the charges were thoroughly enquired into. For wanting in evidence, most of the charges were held not proved by the Enquiry Officer. When a copy of the enquiry report dated 09.01.2014 was forwarded to the petitioner, he had filed the representation and expressed grievance against some casual observations made against him in the said report. But as the final order was not passed, the petitioner had filed a representation on 29.08.2019 but no action came forth.

5. Finally, the petitioner filed the said writ petition for expediting the departmental proceeding to its end. In the perspective fact as above, this court had occasion to direct the respondents by the judgment dated 14.12.2017, which disposed of the said petition to take the final decision. The decision as contained in the communication dated 15.12.2016 was set aside. The respondents were directed to take fresh decision based on the enquiry report. It is apparent from the said judgment that no formal disagreement to the finding of the enquiry officer was registered by the departmentalauthority. From the communication dated 16.09.2014, it appeared to the court that no finding, adverse to the petitioner was raised. In view of the manifest lack of evidence, this court has directed the disciplinary authority to pass the final order within a period of thirty days from the day when the petitioner would furnish a copy of the order. It was directed that after the final decisi