An employer's failure to disburse gratuity and leave encashment timely violates statutory obligation, warranting payment of interest without regard to employee delay in approach.

1. The petitioner was an employee of Birbhum District Central Co-operative Bank Limited. According to the petitioner, after successfully serving at the Birbhum District Central Co- operative Bank Limited (in short, the “bank”) for 38 years retired on 30th November, 2014. According to the petitioner, although, the respondents were obliged to disburse the retiral dues including the gratuity due to the petitioner immediately upon the same having become due, the same was delayed and was ultimately disbursed on 11^th February, 2019. Insofar as leave encashment and arrear salary are concerned, the same were disbursed on 20th July, 2019. According to the petitioner, the Bank was obliged to disburse the gratuity and other retiral benefits immediately on his retirement which had not been done in this case. The petitioner had subsequently made a representation to the respondent No. 5 for disbursal of interest on account of delayed payment of gratuity, leave encashment and arrear salary. Despite receipt of such representation, no steps had been taken by the concerned respondents. It is in the above set of facts that the instant writ petition has been filed.

2. Mr. Ray, learned advocate representing the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 10th January, 2024 passed in WP 16694 of 2019 would submit that the petitioner’s husband is similarly placed with the petitioner in the said writ petition. In identical set of facts, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the Bank to pay interest at the rate of 9% on the arrear leave salary, delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment from the date of retirement till the same was actually paid. According to him, similar benefit should be afforded to the petitioner.

3. Per contra, Mr. Ray, learned advocate representing the respondent Bank would submit that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly. There is no explanation for the delay and as such the petitioner should not be afforded with any relief. In support of his contention that the writ petition should be dismissed on account of delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court, reliance has been placed on the judgments delivered in the case of Shiv Dass vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2007) 9 SCC 274 and in the case of New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Pan Singh & Ors., reported in (2007) 9 SCC 278. He would also by relying on the judgment delivered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 6519 would submit that since, the petitioner had been waiting and watching the proceedings and has only approached this Court after the issue has been decided in another matter, no relief should be afforded to the petitioner who is at best a fence sitter.

4. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Prima facie, it would transpire that the petitioner was an employee of the Birbhum District Central Co-operative Bank Limited. It is also an admitted position and as would appear from the office order dated 27^th November, 2014 that the petitioner had superannuated from service on 30^th November, 2014. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Bank despite being obliged to make available to the petitioner his legal entitlement in the form of leave encashment and arrear salary immediately after his retirement, the same was not done. It is also admitted that legal dues of the petitioner in the form of gratuity was also not disbursed immediately, despite the statute mandating the same. I may note that although, the learned advocate representing the Bank has claimed that the Bank was prevented from disbursing the dues of the petit