Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5791 (CAL)

BANI CHAKRABORTY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/22160/2025 · 2026-02-10

Bivas Pattanayak

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

10.02.2026 Sl. No.46(DL) Ct. No.14 srm IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 22160 of 2025 Bani Chakraborty Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Krishna Pada Santra …for the Petitioner. Ms. Sahina Sumi …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 for direction upon the respondent authorities for disbursement of interest on delayed payment of gratuity and arrear pension from the date following the date of retirement till the date of actual payment @ 18% per annum. 3. The petitioner contends that she was an Assistant Teacher of Chandimata Primary School, Sikhariyapara, District-Bankura. The petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 29th February, 2020. The Pension Payment Order was issued on 27th September, 2021. The gratuity and arrear pension was received by the petitioner on 4th October, 2021. However, no interest has been paid to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. Krishna Pada Santra, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that there is delay in making 2 payment of gratuity and arrear pension. The petitioner is entitled to get interest on the said amount from the date following the date of her retirement till the date of actual payment. 5. Ms. Sahin Sumi, learned Advocate for the State leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court. 6. Though 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). 7. From the contention made in the writ petition, it is found that the petitioner received gratuity and arrear pension after 17 months of her retirement. It is the bounden duty of the State to pay pension and retiral dues to the employee forthwith, failing which the employee is entitled to get interest on such delayed payment. 8. In view of the above, respondent No.2, the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance and respondent No.3, the Treasury Officer, Bankura are directed to disburse interest @ 8% per annum on the gratuity and arrear pension in favour of the petitioner from the date following the date of her retirement till the date of actual payment within a period of eight weeks from date of communication of this order. 3 9. Learned advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to respondent No.2, the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance and respondent No.3, the Treasury Officer, Bankura, for necessary compliance. 10. With the above direction, the writ petition being WPA 22160 of 2025 stands disposed of. 11. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted. 12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 13. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 16. 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.)