DAYAMAY BHATTACHARYA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
WPA/3373/2024 · 2025-06-18
Saugata Bhattacharyya
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10141 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10141 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Ml- 2124 rkd
18.06.2025 Ct.18 W.P.A. 3373 of 2024 Dayamay Bhattacharya -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Ms. Arpita Saha ….for the petitioner. Ms. Paramita Pal ….for the State.
The learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that in spite of effort was made to effect service upon the learned advocate representing the State respondents, same could not be served as name of the learned advocate representing the State respondents in spite of making query could not be obtained from the office of learned Government Pleader. Ms. Paramita Pal, learned advocate is present in Court, who usually represents State respondents. Ms. Pal is requested to enter appearance on behalf of the State respondents. The learned Government Pleader is requested to regularize engagement of Ms. Pal on behalf of the State respondents. The writ petitioner is a retired Assistant Teacher, who superannuated on 31st August, 2018. Due to superannuation of the writ petitioner, first Pension Payment Order was issued on 13th August,
2018 and as per the first Pension Payment Order disbursement of retiral dues was made in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, due to revision of pay as per ROPA 2019 revised Pension Payment Order was issued on 11th August, 2020. The writ petitioner claims interest on revised gratuity as per revised Pension Payment Order due to delayed payment. Accordingly, the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance and the concerned Treasury Officer are directed to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum to the writ petitioner on revised gratuity as per revised pension payment order from 14th February, 2020 till the date of actual disbursement of the revised gratuity amount in favour of the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. Since no affidavit is called for, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 2