21.04.2025 Ct. no.2 Sl. 23 b.r. WPA 105 of 2025 Harihar Dhar & Ors. Vs. The State Bank of India & Ors. Mr. Arup Banerjee …. For the petitioners. Ms. Manika Roy Ms. Ankita Chowdhury Mr. Atanu Sur ….. for the Respondents nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Rajesh Jha Mr. Anjan Chakraborty …. For the Resp. nos. 5 and 6. Affidavit of service filed in Court today, is taken on record. This order shall be effected subject to payment of deficit Court Fees to be paid by each of the petitioners in respect of the balance is concerned. The petitioners are the legal heirs of one Pranati Rani Dhar since deceased, who was an employee of the Defence Department. The deceased employee retired on December 31, 2018. The petitioners claim Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity. The necessary Pension Payment Order (PPO) has already been issued annexure p-1 at page-11 to the writ petition. The Nomination Forms submitted by 2 the deceased employee shows the names of the petitioners as the nominees, annexure p-2 at page- 12 to the writ petition. The Death Certificate of the deceased employee is at page-14 to the writ petition. The document being annexure p-3 at page-15 shows the details and particulars of the authorised bank accounts and the recommendations for making the necessary payment and release of the amount in favour of the petitioners. At pages 16 and 18 are the two communications dated September 20, 2020 and July 27, 2021 showing necessary recommendation and authorization was made to the State Bank of India to release the amount in favour of the nominees. Mr. Arup Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits, till date not a single farthing has been released and paid to the petitioners. He claims an immediate payment. Mr. Anjan Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 and 6, on instruction from his clients specifically submits that the petitioners are eligible to receive the payment as the nominees of the deceased employee and if such payment is made immediately, they have no objection. He further referring to the documents at pages 16 and 18 to the writ petition submits that way back on September 20, 2020 and July 27, 3 2021 his clients have given authorization and recommended for the payment to the State Bank of India, so that the petitioners would be paid immediately. Ms. Monika Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 submits that the amount was lying in an interest bearing account of the State Bank of India and thereafter it was transferred to respondent no.5 on January 7, 2025. In support, she has placed a non-payment certificate dated January 7, 2025 along with the necessary communication dated January 6, 2025, the same are taken on record. Copies are furnished to Mr. Arup Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Anjan Chakraborty, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 5 and 6. She further submits that whatever interest accrued on the amount in question, the entire amount with accrued with accrued interest was transferred to respondent no.5 on January 7, 2025. Referring to the said two communications at pages 16 and 18 to the writ petition, she submits that such communication was never served upon the bank. She further submits that since the amount is now lying with the respondent no.5, it is the authority of the respondent no.5 to disburse the same in favour of the petitioners. 4 Per contra, Mr. Anjan Chakraborty, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 submits that the State Bank of India has not produced a single document to show that the amount has already been transferred with accrued interest in favour of the respondent no.5. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court at the outset reiterates the settled position of law that gratuity and other retiral benefits accrued in favour of an employee, even if such an employee is deceased, it is the exclusive property of such employee and then the same shall be passed on according to the nomination made by such an employee or in the event of absence of any such nomination in terms of inheritance. In the facts of this case, it appears to this Court that, State Bank of India or respondent no.5 who ever holds the amount, it is holding as trustee and as custodian with a definite obligation to release the sum in favour of the nominees, as in the instant case. In view of the above, the respondent nos.5 and 3 shall immediately sort out and settle the issue between themselves and shall come to a conclusive and definite finding with whom the amount is presently lying. Such mutual arrival must be in 5 writing and such writing shall be communicated to the petitioners forthwith jointly by the said respondents. In the event of such mutual decision arriving process, it appears that the amount has been transferred to the respondent no.5 by the State Bank of India, as contended by the Bank, on January 7, 2025, then first it will have to be ensured that the said amount had earned the prevailing rate of interest at the relevant point of time till it was with SBI and then was made over to the respondent no.5. If the principal amount had not earned interest, it will be the obligation of the State Bank of India to add interest thereupon since the original date of receipt of the sum by the State Bank of India from the respondent no.5 till the date of transfer in favour of the respondent no.5 once again. The said calculation of interest shall also be contained in the said writing which shall be communicated to the petitioners. This exercise shall positively be carried and completed within a week from the date of communication of this order. After communication of this exercise and depending upon the finding thereon by the respondent nos. 3 and 5 with whom the amount is presently lying with interest, shall forthwith disburse the same in favour of the 6 petitioners strictly in terms of the nomination made by the deceased employee mentioned in annexure p-2 at page-12 to the writ petition but positively within a period of next seven days from the date of the decision to be arrived at by the respondent nos. 3 and 5 as directed above. The amount shall be disbursed to the petitioners by crediting their respective bank accounts as would be evident from annexure p-3 at page-15 to the writ petition. These directions are mandatory. Since affidavits are not called for, the allegations made in this writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition, WPA 105 of 2025 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously. (Aniruddha Roy, J.)