Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay WPA 17445 of 2019 Satyendra Nath Ghosh Versus State of West Bengal & Ors. For the petitioner : Mrs. Susmita Dey (Basu) For the respondent nos. 3 to 5 : Mr. Suddhadev Adak Heard & Judgment on : 4th August, 2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J: 1. The Learned Advocates representing the respective parties are present in Court. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved for delayed payment of gratuity and leave salary for a period of 19 months from the date of his superannuation on 31.12.2017 as an ‘Operator’ from the services of the respondent authority on attaining the age of superannuation at 60 years. The petitioner had been entitled to a sum of Rs.5,98,290/- along with leave salary of Rs.2,83,280/- amounting to Rs.8,81,570/-. The petitioner had received a sum of Rs.8,13,473/- through the 2 Bank, credited to his Bank account held in United Bank Savings Account on 30.07.2019 after a delay of 19 months. The petitioner had filed the instant writ petition claiming the balance sum of Rs.68,097/- along with an interest of 10% from the date of his superannuation till the date of actual realization. 3. The Learned Advocate representing the respondents authorities submitted instead of Rs.68,097/- the petitioner was entitled to a sum of Rs.50,700/- with regard to the fixation of pay under CMS 2001 for the period calculated from 1st July, 2010 till 31st December, 2017. It was further submitted that on rectification of the pay scale after retirement of the petitioner he was entitled to 50,700/- which should have been deducted. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent/Corporation further submitted that the Administrative Department had directed the Corporation to cancel the career benefits accorded to the petitioner under MCAS 2001 granting pay protection, benefit/equalization of pay etc. with further issuance of rectified orders to that effect. Accordingly, Order No. 1022/WIO/2P- 03/2018 dated 17.05.2018 was issued. However, it was ultimately submitted by the Learned Advocate representing the respondent/Corporation that the petitioner was entitled to a sum of Rs.50,700/- instead of Rs.68,097/-. 3 4. Considered the rival contention of the Learned Advocates representing the respective parties. 5. Apart from the statement of an error to have been committed by the respondent/Corporation in granting the pay fixation as stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Learned Advocate representing the respondent/Corporation, the error committed in the fixation of pay had not been vividly described. It had further been a failure on the part of the respondent/Corporation to justify the claimed amount of Rs.50,700/- to have been overdrawn by the petitioner wherein the petitioner had no role to play if at all such circumstances had ever arisen. Under the facts and circumstances and the slackened attitude on the part of the respondents authorities to have distinctly segregated the amount of Rs.50,700/- erroneously to have been claimed by the petitioner on the ground of overdrawal cannot be accepted. It was further not established as to how and in what manner the claim of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.68,097/- had been inaccurate. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent/Corporation is to disburse the sum of Rs.8,13,473/- from the date of superannuation on 31.12.2017 for a period of 19 months and further the calculated sum of Rs.68,097/- along with 4 interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of superannuation, i.e., 31.12.2017 till the date within a period of two months. 7. The instant writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 8. Parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of the Calcutta High Court. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) Srimanta, A.R.(Ct)