BANKIM BEHARI DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated August 21, 2012 is alleging that for undisclosed reasons the respondents liable to pay him gratuity, leave salary, etc. and not disputing his entitlement and their liability have not paid the benefits.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner retired from services of Calcutta State Transport Corporation (in short CSTC) on September 30, 2008, and that CSTC incurred an obligation to pay him gratuity, leave salary, etc. on October 1, 2008. Nor is it disputed that CSTC has not paid him the benefits.

(3.) THE plea that for gratuity the petitioner had a remedy under s.8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is without any merit. Availability of a statutory remedy such as the one under s.8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not a bar to seek the art.226 remedy. Besides, the petitioner's entitlement to gratuity and liability of CSTC to pay gratuity both are undisputed.