NIRANJAN KUMAR MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was an approved Assistant Teacher of Dostapur High School in the district of South 24 Parganas, retired from service on superannuation with effect from 31 st October, 1999. There was enormous delay on the part of the State respondents in settlement of retiral dues of the petitioner. Pension Payment Order was issued by the concerned Authority on 22 nd April, 2002. Even then the retiral dues of the petitioner as per the said Pension Payment Order was not paid to the petitioner immediately after the issuance of the Pension Payment Order. Such payment was made to the petitioner on 28 th February, 2004 i.e. almost two years after issuance of the Pension Payment Order. As per the Government Memo dated 26 th May, 1998, by which the pension scheme was introduced for the employees of the Government Aided Institutions, the State was required to pay the retiral dues such as death-cumretiring gratuity etc. on the very next day following the date of his retirement. But in the instant case, the State respondents paid the retiral dues of the petitioner almost four years after his retirement. Thus, the State respondents enjoyed the petitioner's money for about four years for its own benefit.

(2.) The process for settlement of the retiral dues of a retired person becomes complete when the Pension Payment Order is issued. As such, this Court does not find any justification for such delay in payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner after issuance of the Pension Payment Order. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the State respondent committed default in enforcing its own scheme which was framed by the State respondents as a social security measure for its retired employees in recognition of their past service in the Government Aided Institutions. When such a retired employee has come to this Court with this writ petition claiming interest on delayed payment of his deathcum-retiring gratuity, the State respondents who themselves committed default in implementation of its own scheme, have raised a question regarding entertainability of this writ petition on the ground of delay.

(3.) Here is the case where a defaulter is complaining against the delay and laches of the petitioner as he has not approached the Court promptly after the cause of action for this writ petition had matured. The cause of action for this writ petition, according to the respondents matured in 2004, when retiral dues without interest was paid to the petitioner but the present writ petition was filed in 2011, i.e. almost after expiry of seven years after the cause of action had matured.