IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/720/2024 Shri Umananda Roy Vs. The Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council and Another Mrs. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv. Mr. Adarsh Ilango …. for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar … for the respondents February 05, 2026 [SR] Item No.02 The petitioner was an employee of the Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council (in short ‘the Municipal Council’). He retired upon reaching the age of superannuation on July 31, 2023. Being aggrieved by nonpayment of his pensionary benefits, the petitioner approached a learned Judge of this Court by filing WPA/913/2023. By a judgment and order dated September 26, 2023, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition directing the respondent authorities to disburse the regular pensionary benefits to the writ petitioner immediately and not latter then two weeks from the date of communication of the order to them. The Municipal Council carried the said order in appeal by filing MAT/4/2024. The appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench by a judgment and order dated January 15, 2024. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:- “Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The order impugned is corrected. The full pension and other 2 retirement benefits be released with a month, upon passing necessary orders. The arrear pension be paid within the next six months.” The Municipal Council challenged the said Division Bench order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 9732/2024 which was dismissed by an order dated May 06, 2024. Thereafter, the pensionary benefits were released in favour of the petitioner on June 14, 2024. By a letter dated June 21, 2024, the petitioner requested the Municipal Council to pay interest to him on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits. Since the petitioner did not receive any response to his letter demanding interest, he approached this Court by filing WPA/420/2024. By an order dated August 09, 2024, this Court directed the Secretary of the Municipal Council to dispose of the petitioner’s representation by passing a reasoned order. Subsequently by an order dated November 08, 2024, the petitioner’s claim for interest has been negated by the Secretary of the Municipal Council. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has once again approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is elementary that if there is delay in payment of the pensionary benefits of a retired employee, which delay is not attributable in any manner to the said employee, the employer must pay interest to compensate the ex-employee for the inconvenience and hardship caused to him. 3 Learned counsel for the Municipal Council says that the delay was not due to any fault on the part of the Municipal Council or any of its officers. The Municipal Council received complaints regarding the petitioner. The complaint pertained to financial irregularity on the part of the petitioner. Hence, the Municipal Council contemplated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The Municipal Council was awaiting vigilance clearance for initiating such proceedings. In the meantime, the petitioner approached this Court and the litigation ultimately reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For all these reasons, there was some delay in disbursing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner which was ultimately released on June 14, 2024. Hence, this is not a case where the Municipal Council should be directed to pay any interest to the petitioner. It is established law that, if there is delay in payment of a retiring employee’s pensionary benefits, interest must be paid as a compensatory measure. There are judgments galore on this point which I need not refer to since this is the settled law. We may also take note of Rule 65 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021. Sub Clause (1) of Rule 65 read as follows:- “65. Interest on delayed payment of gratuity, pension and family pension.- (1) In all cases where provisional pension or provisional family pension or provisional gratuity has not been sanctioned in accordance with these rules or where the payment of pension or family pension or gratuity has been authorised later than the date when its payment becomes due, including in the cases of retirement otherwise than on superannuation, and it is clearly established that the delay in payment was attributable to administrative reasons or lapses, interest shall be paid on 4 arrears of pension or family pension or gratuity at the rate and in the manner as applicable to General Provident Fund amount in accordance with the instructions issued from time to time: Provided that no interest under this sub-rule shall be payable if the delay in payment was caused on account of failure on the part of the Government servant or the pensioner or the member of the family of the Government servant to comply with the procedure laid down by the Government for processing the pension or family pension case.” Pensionary benefits are paid to a retiring employee to ensure that such employee is able to live a life of reasonable comfort and dignity after he ceases to receive salary by reason of retirement from service. It is a source of sustenance for the retiring employee and often also for his family. Hence, any delay in payment of such benefits, so long as not caused by or attributable to such employee, must be viewed seriously. The employee concerned must be compensated by payment of interest. In the instant case, I do not see that the petitioner can be blamed to any extent for the delay in payment of his pensionary benefits. In fact, he had to approach this Court to obtain an order directing the Municipal Council to pay his benefits on an early date. Challenging to such order thrown by the Municipal Council before the Division Bench and then before the Hon’ble Supreme Court failed. The orders of the Courts establish that it was the Municipal Council which was at fault and the delay in payment of the petitioner’s pensionary benefits is solely attributable to the Municipal Council. Hence, interest has to be paid to the petitioner. 5 It may also be noted that no disciplinary proceeding has in fact been initiated against the petitioner. The complaint allegedly received by the respondents pertain to purchase of dust-bins by the Municipality way back in 2007. I see that the petitioner retired from service on July 31, 2023. Pensionary benefits were paid to him on June 14, 2024. Hence, for the period from August 01, 2023 till June 14, 2024, the petitioner will be entitled to receive interest on his pensionary benefits @ 8% per annum. Such interest will be paid by the Municipal Council to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of communication of this order to the concerned officer in the Municipal Council by the petitioner. WPA/720/2024 is disposed of. Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Arijit Banerjee, J. )