Ratan Chandra Nag and Others Vs North Bengal State Transport Corporation and Another

Calcutta High Court 25 Jul 2012 Writ Petition No. 15369 (W) of 2012
Bench: Single Bench

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Writ Petition No. 15369 (W) of 2012

Hon'ble Bench

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J

Advocates

Srijan Nayak and Mr. Raja Saha, for the Appellant; Pantu Deb Roy, Siddhartha Rej and Mr. S. Guha Biswas, for the Respondent

Judgement Text

Translate:

Hon''ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas

1. This WP under art.226 is entertained only at the instance of the first petitioner. Insofar as the other petitioners are concerned, it is dismissed

giving them liberty to file separate WPs on the same cause of action. The first petitioner is alleging that for undisclosed reasons the respondents

liable to pay him leave salary etc. and not disputing his entitlement and their liability have not paid the benefits.

2. It is not disputed that the first petitioner retired from services of North Bengal State Transport Corporation (in short NBSTC) on August 31,

2009, and that NBSTC incurred an obligation to pay him leave salary, etc. on September 1, 2009. Nor is it disputed that NBSTC has not paid

him the benefits.

3. Mr Deb Roy appearing for NBSTC submits that the first 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.).

4. In my opinion, financial crisis, if any, of NBSTC is not a ground to say that it was or is entitled to withhold the first petitioner''s leave salary, etc.

It was under an obligation to pay the benefits on September 1, 2009. By withholding the benefits it has caused irreparable loss and harassment to

the first petitioner. This is a litigation it has generated without any valid reason.

5. In my opinion, NBSTC should be ordered to pay the petitioner all the benefits to which he 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 first petitioner leave salary, etc.

according to law with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from September 1, 2009, within four weeks from the date this order is served on it. No costs.

Certified xerox

From The Blog
Bhim Singh, MLA vs State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others (1985)
Oct
18
2025

Landmark Judgements

Bhim Singh, MLA vs State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others (1985)
Read More
The Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. vs The State of Rajasthan and Others (1962)
Oct
18
2025

Landmark Judgements

The Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. vs The State of Rajasthan and Others (1962)
Read More