TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated July 23, 2012 is alleging that for undisclosed reasons the respondents liable to pay him gratuity, leave salary, pension, commuted value of pension, etc. and not disputing his entitlement and their liability have not paid the benefits. It is not disputed that the petitioner retired from services of North Bengal State Transport Corporation (in short NBSTC) on January 31, 2010, and that NBSTC incurred an obligation to pay him gratuity, leave salary, pension, commuted value of pension, etc. on February 1, 2010. Nor is it disputed that NBSTC has not paid him the benefits.

(2.) Mr Deb Roy appearing for NBSTC submits that the petitioner was paid in excess of his entitlement; that the amount payable could not be paid for acute financial crisis; and that for gratuity the petitioner had a remedy under s. 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. He has relied on an unreported Division Bench decision dated March 27, 2012 in MAT No.112 of 2012 (The Managing Director, CTC Ltd. & Ors. v. Munshi Abdul Rouf & Ors.).

(3.) In my opinion, financial crisis, if any, of NBSTC is not a ground to say that it was or is entitled to withhold the petitioner's gratuity, leave salary, pension, commuted value of pension, etc. It was under an obligation to pay the benefits on February 1, 2010. By withholding the benefits it has caused irreparable loss and harassment to the petitioner. This is a litigation it has generated without any valid reason.