Calcutta High Court
WPA/15671/2024 of NAYAN KUMAR BASAK Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 8 September 2026
2026 Ct. No. 18 Ab IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE. WPA 15671 of 2024 Nayan Kumar Basak Vs. The State of West Bengal and others. --------------- Mr. Parvej Anam. … for the petitioner. Mr. Srijib Chakraborty. … for the State. Ms. Deblina
08.09.
Ct. No. 18
Ab
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE.
WPA 15671 of 2024
Nayan Kumar Basak
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and others.
---------------
Mr. Parvej Anam.
… for the petitioner.
Mr. Srijib Chakraborty.
… for the State.
Ms. Deblina Chattaraj,
Ms. Poulami Chattopadhyay.
… for the WBTC.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The affidavit of service filed today is taken on record.
2. The petitioner was an employee of the Calcutta Tramways Company
Limited, presently known as West Bengal Transport Corporation Limited. He retired from service sometime on February 28, 2019 and received his retiral benefits finally on July 12, 2019.
3. The petitioner prays for interest on account of delay in releasing the Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment and other dues.
4. The petitioner prays for interest on account of delay in releasing the provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment and other dues.
5. It is settled law that the right of a retired employee to get his retiral dues on the date of attaining superannuation is a valuable right which accrues in his favour on the date of his attaining superannuation. Retiral dues are no more considered to be a bounty to be handed out by the State at its whim. An employee has a statutory right to receive such payment upon retirement. If payment is delayed, the retired employee is surely entitled to get some interest for such delayed payment.
6. In the present case, it was the bounden duty of the employer to disburse the provident fund amount on the due date. As the employer has failed to do so and has released such amount after unexplained delay, the employer is obliged to pay interest to the retired employee.
7. In view of the above, I direct the concerned authority of the Corporation to pay to the petitioner simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment and other dues calculated on and from the next date of retirement till the date of actual payment within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order.
8. In default of paying interest to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid direction, the concerned respondent authority shall be liable to pay additional simple interest at the rate of 2% i.e. 6+2= 8% on provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment and other dues.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of.
10. Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)