ORDER SHEET WBCHCA0154722026 Ct. No.1 Sl. No.21 PG/KS IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WP.CT. 80 of 2026 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Versus BARMAN SAREN Appearance: Mr. Pradip Kr. Das Mr. Partha Sarathi Mondal …..Advocate For the Petitioners CORAM: RAVINDRA VITHALRAO GHUGE, CJ & ARIJIT BANERJEE J. Date: 17.09.2026 Order (Per Court) 1. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners. The Petitioners/Union of India and others have assailed the judgment of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata, dated 04.07.2025, delivered in OA/350/1283/2024, by which, the statutory interest payable under the Rules as per the rate applicable to the GPF account has been granted on account of delayed 2 / 3 payment of Gratuity. 2. We do not find that the grounds set out by the Petitioners and the submissions of the learned counsel could be considered in the light of the settled principles of law. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order on Special Leave to Appeal ( C ) No. 4468 of 2022, Gagan Bihari Prusty vs. Paradip Port Trust & Ors. concluding that statutory interest on delayed payment of Gratuity, has to be paid without any excuse. 3. While considering the submissions of the learned advocate for the Petitioners, we find from the record that there is a typographical mistake in paragraph 16, of the impugned order. We find from the record that Original Applicant became eligible to receive his Gratuity amount on 01.08.2022, after the conclusion of the departmental inquiry. The Petitioners sanctioned the gratuity on 20.05.2024, wrongly typed as 20.05.2025 in paragraph 16 of the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, the only correction that is required in paragraph 16 of the impugned order is that Gratuity was paid on 20.05.2024 and, therefore, the interest on delayed payment would be payable for the period from 01.08.2022 to 20.05.2024. 4. In view of the above, we do not find that the impugned 3 / 3 Judgment of the Tribunal could be branded as being perverse or erroneous. 5. This petition is devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed. (ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) CHIEF JUSTICE