Sumita Sen Gupta Vs North Bengal State Transport Corporation and Others

Calcutta High Court 20 Jul 2012 Writ Petition No. 15088 (W) of 2012
Bench: Single Bench
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Writ Petition No. 15088 (W) of 2012

Hon'ble Bench

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J

Advocates

Sandip Ghosh and Mr. Subrata Das, for the Appellant;Jayanta Banerjee, Sk. Md. Galib for the State and Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, S. Guha Biswas, S. Rej for NBSTC, for the Respondent

Acts Referred

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226#Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — Section 8

Judgement Text

Translate:

Hon''ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas

1. The petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated July 13, 2012 is alleging that for undisclosed reasons the respondents, liable to pay service

benefits of her husband and not disputing her entitlement and their liability, have not paid the benefits. It is not disputed that the husband of the

petitioner died on December 3, 2009 when he was in the services of North Bengal State Transport Corporation (in short NBSTC), and that

NBSTC incurred an obligation to pay his service benefits on December 4, 2009. Nor is it disputed that NBSTC has not paid the benefits.

2. Mr. Deb Roy appearing for NBSTC submits that the employee was paid in excess of his entitlement; that the benefits 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.).

3. In my opinion, financial crisis, if any, of NBSTC is not a ground to say that it was or is entitled to withhold the benefits. It was under an

obligation to pay the benefits on December 4, 2009. 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.

4. The plea that for gratuity the petitioner had a remedy under s. 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is without 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 employee''s

entitlement to gratuity and liability of NBSTC to pay gratuity both are undisputed.

5. In my opinion, NBSTC should be ordered to pay the petitioner all the benefits to which she is entitled. The relied on Division Bench decision

does not entitle NBSTC 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. For these reasons, I dispose of the WP directing NBSTC to pay the petitioner her husband''s service

benefits according to law with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from December 4, 2009, within four weeks from the date this order is served on it.

No costs. Certified xerox.