22.09.2026 Sl. No.10 Ct. No.14 ss IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 29287 of 2025 Jyotsna Rani Das Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Ms. Jonaki Saha …for the Petitioner Mr. Sourav Sengupta Ms. Sruti Datta …for the State. 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities for disbursement of interest on delayed payment of arrear pension amount from the date of retirement of the concerned employee till the date of actual payment at the rate of 18% per annum. 3. The petitioner contends that her husband was an approved Head Teacher in Bara Subarnanagar Primary School, P.O. Champatala, District Purba Medinipur, who retired from service on superannuation on 31st October, 1991 and expired on 31st March, 2011. The pension payment order was issued in favour of the petitioners 8th March, 2000. The arrear pension amount was disbursed on 31st March, 2001. However, no interest on the aforesaid amount has been paid. Hence, this writ petition. 2 4. Ms. Jonaki Saha, learned advocate for the petitioner submit that there is a delay in disbursement of the arrear pension amount and as such the petitioner is entitled to receive interest on the delayed payment of arrear pension amount. She seeks for appropriate orders. 5. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the State. 6. Mr. Sourav Sengupta, learned advocate, who usually appears for the State, is requested to appear in this matter with junior of his choice. Let their appointment be regularised by the competent authority. 7. The petitioner is directed to hand over a copy of the writ petition along with the annexures to Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate for the State. 8. Mr. Sengupta, learned Advocate for the State leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court. 9. At the outset, it is found that there is delay in making such claim. However, delay per se cannot defeat the valuable right of the petitioner. Relief may be granted to the writ petitioner in spite of the delay if it does not affect the right of third parties. (see: Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 3 SCC 648). 10. From the aforesaid contentions made in the writ petition, it is found that there is considerable delay in disbursement of the arrear pension amount. It is the bounden duty of the State to disburse all the 3 pensionary benefits to the employee forthwith, failing which the employee is entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount. 11. Accordingly, respondent no. 2, the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal and respondent no. 3, the Treasury Officer, Contai, are directed to disburse the interest at the rate of @ 8% per annum on the arrear of pension amount in favour of the petitioner by way of pensionary benefits from the date following the date of retirement of the concerned employee till the date of actual payment. Such payment is to be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 12. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to respondent no. 2, the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal and respondent no. 3, the Treasury Officer, Contai, for necessary compliance. 13. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition being WPA 29287 of 2025 is disposed of. 14. Since no affidavit is called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied. 15. Consequently, connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 16. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. 4 17. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)