DINESH KUMAR ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court : The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated July 10, 2012 is alleging that for undisclosed reasons the respondents liable to pay him balance gratuity, 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 Tramways Company (in short CTC) on July 31, 2009, and that CTC incurred an obligation to pay him balance gratuity, etc. on August 1, 2009. Nor is it disputed that CTC 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 CTC to pay gratuity both are undisputed.