RAJPATI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An apparently commonplace question has been brought before me in this challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against non-payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity amount and arrear pension.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The writ petitioner reached the age of superannuation on February 28, 2011 and therefore superannuated. Thereafter, he duly complied with all formalities to get all the benefits being in the nature of his fruits of labour. He also prepared and submitted his pension booklet to the proper authorities. Though the pension papers were sent to the concerned District Inspector of Schools, admittedly for no fault of the writ petitioner, the matter was kept pending for a long time. Ultimately, the pension payment order was issued only on July 22, 2011.Despite the said pension payment order being issued, the respondent authorities did not actually disburse the amount of such arrear pension and gratuity until October 25, 2011. They however, did not do their duty in the matter of timely releasing the pensionary benefits or paying interest at any rate, far less at the rate of 10% per annum, whether in terms of the Government Circular No.88-WBSE (B) dated May 26, 1988 or the Circular No. 641-F dated January 19, 2004, respectively.

(3.) Normally the duty to pay gratuity is statutory in India, at least ever since 1972, if a person can show he or she is an employee within the meaning of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in an establishment covered within the meaning of Section 1 of the Act of 1972. However, the situation is not as simple as that in case of "teachers". The petitioner, needless to mention, is claiming the retirement benefits including gratuity for his service as a teacher.