SHANKAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court : The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated November 12, 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 Tramways Company (in short CTC) on August 31, 2010, and that CTC incurred an obligation to pay him gratuity, leave salary, etc. on September 1, 2010. Nor is it disputed that CTC has not paid him the benefits. Mr Deb Roy appearing for CTC 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.). In my opinion, financial crisis, if any, of CTC 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 September 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.

(3.) IN my opinion, CTC should be ordered to pay the petitioner all the benefits to which he is entitled. The relied on Division Bench decision does not entitle CTC to withhold the benefits or pay them in the manner it wishes. It is liable to pay interest. I think interest, if ordered at the rate of 7% p.a., will be fair and reasonable.