🖨️ Print / Download PDF

Ashutosh Majumder Vs North Bengal State Transport Corporation and Others

Case No: Writ Petition No. 15076 (W) of 2012

Date of Decision: July 20, 2012

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

Hon'ble Judges: Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J

Bench: Single Bench

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

Translate: English | हिन्दी | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | ಕನ್ನಡ | मराठी

Judgement

Jayanta Kumar Biswas

1. The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated July 16, 2012 is alleging that for undisclosed reasons the respondents, liable to pay him gratuity,

leave salary, pension, commuted value of pension, etc. and not disputing his entitlement and their liability, have not paid the benefits. It is not

disputed that the petitioner retired from services of North Bengal State Transport Corporation (in short NBSTC) on April 30, 2010, and that

NBSTC incurred an obligation to pay him gratuity, leave salary, pension, commuted value of pension, etc. on May 1, 2010. Nor is it disputed that

NBSTC has not paid him the benefits.

2. Mr Deb Roy appearing for NBSTC submits that the 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.).

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 petitioner''s gratuity, leave salary,

pension, commuted value of pension, etc. It was under an obligation to pay the benefits on May 1, 2010. 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 petitioner''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 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 petitioner gratuity, leave salary,

pension, commuted value of pension, etc. according to law with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from May 1, 2010, within four weeks from the date

this order is served on it. No costs. Certified xerox.

Download Judgement PDF