PARESH NATH SAMANTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application challenging an order dtd. 12/11/2014 passed by the Managing Director, Calcutta State Corporation, thereby rejecting the petitioner's prayer for payment of interest on 60% of the gratuity and leave salary, the due arrears in terms of ROPA, 2009 and refund of the deducted amount in connection with purported over payment.

(2.) The petitioner joined the respondent no. 3, a statutory corporation, as an Assistant Security Officer on 5/10/1983. By an office order dtd. 29/3/1997, the petitioner was later appointed as a Discipline Officer. Subsequently, he received notice of final superannuation under a Memo dtd. 20/8/2010. On 29/11/2011 a Single Bench of this Court restrained the respondents therein from making any payment towards honorarium, salaries, perquisites of those who took active part in the affairs management and distribution of fund of the respondent corporation until and unless gratuity and other settlement dues are paid to the petitioner. By an order dtd. 14/2/2012, a Division Bench of this Court directed the appellant corporation to release 60% of the total retiral benefits to the petitioner within 7 days from the receipt of the amount from the State Government. On 15/3/2012 the petitioner received 60% of the retiral dues with interest. On 21/6/2012 a Single Bench of this Court directed the respondent no. 1 therein to release the terminal benefits with 7% interest per annum within four weeks. Subsequently, the petitioner received the remaining 40% retiral dues with 7% interest per annum. However, certain sums were deducted from the retiral benefits on the purported ground of over payment. On 14/6/2013 the petitioner made an application under Right to Information Act for seeking information. It was furnished on 17/7/2013. Thereafter, on 13/8/2013 petitioner made a representation before the respondent no. 3 requesting him to pay interest on delayed payment of 60% of his terminal benefits and to release the amount recovered from the terminal benefits with interest. In 2014 a Single Bench of this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners representation dtd. 13/8/2013. By the impugned order the Managing Director rejected most of the petitioner's prayers.

(3.) Ms. Susmita Dey (Basu), learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted as follows. First, before the superannuation of the petitioner, ROPA 2009 had become applicable. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to arrears in terms of ROPA 2009. Secondly, the immediate payment of 60% of the gratuity and leave salary as directed by a Division Bench of this Court was meant to provide an immediate relief to the petitioner. There, the question of payment of interest was neither considered nor decided. However, by the subsequent order passed by a Single Bench of this Court it was categorically held that the petitioner was entitled to receive due arrears with an interest of 7 % per annum. Thus, this would cover the earlier payment of 60% of the dues made to the petitioner. Thirdly, reliance was placed on a decision of special Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2014) 8 SCC 883 and it was submitted that after superannuation of an employee no sum could be deducted from his retiral dues. Therefore, the sum that was deducted from the retiral dues of the present petitioner have to be refunded forthwith.