The main legal point established is that delayed retirement benefits are subject to interest under the Constitution of India and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the entire action of the respondents in releasing the retirement benefits of the petitioner with abnormal delay of more than four years from the date of petitioner’s retirement without any fault from the petitioner’s side, despite petitioner submitting his pension papers within time as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, colorable excise of power, vindictive attitude and opposed to Articles 16 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay interest @ 24% per annum for the period from the date of retirement to till the actual payment is made i.e. between 31.10.2016 and 30.04.2020.

3. Perused the record.

4. The petitioner on an occasion approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 29357 of 2017. This Court passed interim direction on 31.08.2017 in WPMP No. 36535 of 2017 in W.P. No. 29357 of 2017, directing the respondents to forthwith release the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner duly accepting the pension proposals forwarded by the 2nd respondent consequent on retirement of the petitioner by suspending the operation of the impugned letter DAO-SA No. 15/A7/2016-17, dated 23.01.2017 of the 3rd respondent wherein the 3rd respondent instructed the 2nd respondent to recover the pay and allowances paid to the petitioner for a period of two yeas.

5. Writ Petition No. 29357 of 2017 filed by the petitioner was disposed of finally on 21.02.2019, observing as follows:

“14. The Calcutta High Court in W.P. No. 28467 (W) of 2017 while dealing with similar situation in respect of undertaking held as follows:

“In my considered view the issue regarding undertaking exercised b y the petitioner has already been discussed in plethora of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court. In State of West Bengal and Others vs. Harekrishna Sardar and Another, 2009 (4) CHN (Cal.) 136 where the Hon’ble Division bench relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision reported in State of Orissa vs. Dr. Binapani Dey, AIR 1957 SC 1269 held that even if undertaking was given but after retirement deduction from the gratuity amount without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner when the petitioner was in service cannot be sustained since it is an administrative order which causes civil consequences. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Division Bench affirmed the Trial Court Judgment without any interference.”

15. In view of the above, I do not see any justification on the part of the respondents in recovering salary and allowances paid to the petitioner for the period from 31.10.2014 to 31.10.2016, from the retirement benefits of the petitioner. As far as the other aspect with regard to calculation of retirement benefits is concerned, even according to petitioner he attained the age of superannuation by 31.10.2014 and the Rules permit only calculation of period upto the age of superannuation. In view of the same, the said excess service of two years rendered by the petitioner from 31.10.2014 to 31.10.2016 cannot be counted for calculation of pension. Though learned counsel for respondents states that proceedings dated 16.06.2017 were not challenged, those are consequential proceedings to the impugned proceedings, more so, by way of amendment the same are sought to be challenged by the petitioner.

16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The amount already recovered, if any, from the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.”

6. The statement filed by the 2nd respondent Municipality gives the details of the amount recovered from the pension and gratuity of Sri. G. Venkat i.e. the petitioner herein, who is the holder of pension pa