ARUN KUMAR HALDAR vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE


Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi


WPA 16992 of 2024

Arun Kumar Haldar

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.


For the petitioner : Mr. R. Chatterjee, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Arhat Biswas, Adv.
Ms. Prisanka Ganguly, Adv.

For the BCKV : Ms. Leena Majumdar, Adv.


Heard on : 07.09.2026

Judgment on : 07.09.2026

Uploaded on : 07.09.2026


MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J:-
1. Petitioner, State and respondent nos. 3 and 4 are
represented.
2. At the time of hearing, it is submitted by the learned
advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has already received
the post retiral-benefits in respect of the writ petitioner. He submits

2

that such benefits were paid to the writ petitioner after around five
years from the superannuation of the writ petitioner. He submits
that for such delay in making the payment of the post-retiral
entitlements of the petitioner, the fault for delayed payment cannot
be attributed to the writ petitioner.
3. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to interest
for the delay in payment of the post-retiral benefits of the writ
present petitioner.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner refers to prayer “B” of
the writ petition.
5. According to the learned advocate for the writ petitioner,
interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the outstanding post-
retirement benefits of the writ petitioner has been sought in the
present writ petition. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits
that so far as the prayer “A” of the writ petition is concerned, it
stood specified that the payment of the post-retirement benefits of
the writ petitioner.
6. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the
petitioner relied upon (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 894 [D.D.
Tewari (Dead) Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited &
Ors.] and ( 2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 627 (Dr. A. Selvaraj Vs.
C.B.M. College & Ors) .

3

7. Learned advocate for the State-respondents submits that
the promotion granted to the writ petitioner was neither within the
knowledge of the department nor was it approved by the
department. She also submits that due to such lack of knowledge of
the promotion, the State-respondents have to verify the promotion
granted to the writ petitioner. Such time was consumed in such
verification. She submits that the delay in making of the post-
retirement benefits of the wit petitioner is not attributable to the
department and, as such, the department should not be burdened
with paying interest.
8. Present writ petitioner was a mess employee under Bidhan
Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya (BCKV) under the control of the
University in the pay scale of Rs. 300 - Rs. 525 by an order dated
April 16, 1985 by the Registrar of the University. The writ petitioner
continued to serve as mess employee till July 20, 1995. Thereafter,
the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant under BCKV
against a sanctioned regular vacancy by an order of the Registrar
dated July 20, 1995. His services were confirmed in the respondent
University with effect from July 1, 2004 by an order passed by the
Registrar of the University on September 15, 2004.
9. Subsequently, the writ petitioner was promoted to the post
of Senior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 4525 – 10175/- with

4

effect from February 22, 2006 by an order dated March 24, 2006.
He was again promoted to Junior Superintendent with effect from
January 1, 2014. The writ petitioner had served in various posts in
BCKV. He ultimately superannuated from service on March 31,
2021. By various orders, the writ petitioner was held entitled for
monthly pension at different rates from time to time and the
pension was released during the pendency of the instant writ
application. However, the amount towards leave salary and gratuity
was not paid to the writ petitioner until March 27, 2026 after a
delay of around five years in releasing such payments.
10. It has been submitted by the learned advocate for the
petitioner that such payments were cleared by the authorities in
favour of the present writ petitioner after a delay and as such, the
writ petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment.
11. In D.D. Tewari (Dead) (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held as follows :-

“6. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired
from service on attaining the age of superannuation on
31-10-2006 and the order of the learned Single Judge
after adverting to the relevant facts and the legal
position has given a direction to the respondent
employer to pay the erroneously withheld pensionary
benefits and the gratuity amount to the legal
representatives of the deceased employee without

5

awarding interest for which the appellant is legally
entitled, therefore, this Court has to exercise its
appellate jurisdiction as there is a miscarriage of justice
in denying the interest to be paid or payable by the
employer from the date of the entitlement of the
deceased employee till the date of payment as per the
aforesaid legal principle laid down by this Court in the
judgment referred to supra. We have to award interest
at the rate of 9% per annum both on the amount of
pension due and the gratuity amount which are to be
paid by the respondent.
7. It is needless to mention that the respondents have
erroneously withheld payment of gratuity amount for
which the appellants herein are entitled in law for
payment of penal amount on the delayed payment of
gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case, we do not propose to do that in the case in
hand.
8. For the reasons stated above, we award interest at
the rate of 9% on the delayed payment of pension and
gratuity amount from the date of entitlement till the date
of the actual payment. If this amount is not paid within
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
the same shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per
annum from the date the amount falls due to the
deceased employee. With the above directions, this
appeal is allowed.”

6

12. Similarly, in Dr. A. Selvaraj (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court laid down as follow :-

“13. In view of the above discussion and for the
reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds.
The impugned judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court and that of the
learned Single Judge denying the interest on
delayed payment of retirement benefits to the
appellant is hereby quashed and set aside. The
Management/Trustees/College are hereby directed
to pay the interest on the delayed payment of
retirement benefits to the appellant, from the date of
retirement till the actual payment was made, subject
to the final decision that may be taken by the
Government on the objections to the enquiry report
that may be filed by the former Secretary and/or the
College and it will be open for the
College/Management/Trustees to recover the same
from the person, who, ultimately is held to be
responsible for the delay.
14. The payment of interest on delayed payment of
retirement benefits to be paid strictly within a period
of six weeks from today. In the meantime, the
Government to pass a final order on the enquiry
report after giving an opportunity to the
College/Management/former Secretary. It goes
without saying that it would be open to the
aggrieved party to challenge the said decision before
the appropriate forum.”

7

13. So far as the present case is concerned, it is an admitted
position that the writ petitioner superannuated from service on
March 31, 2021 and the payment of gratuity and leave salary was
made to the credit of the writ petitioner on March 27, 2026. There is
a considerable delay in making the payment.
14. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the matter of D.D. Tewari (Dead) (supra) and in Dr. A. Selvaraj
(supra), the writ petitioner is entitled for the interest on the delayed
payment of his post-retiral benefits.
15. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the present case, I am of the opinion that the interest at the rate of
6 % per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity and leave salary,
with effect from the date of his retirement i.e. March 31, 2021 till
the payment of the same in full, may be granted to the writ
petitioner. The respondents will make such payment within a period
of four weeks from date.
16. Initially, the necessary payments as directed by this order
shall be made by the State Government through the University and
in turn, the University will release the same in favour of the writ
petitioner. The State will provide the necessary funds for the
aforesaid payments.

8

17. With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition
being WPA 16992 of 2024 stands disposed of.
18. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this judgment, if applied
for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary
legal formalities.

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)









tbsr/26