Calcutta High Court
WPA/20057/2025 of HEMIKA NATH Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 6 August 2026
Court No.24 SD IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION WPA 20057 of 2025 Hemika Nath Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Ms. Jonaki Saha … for the Petitioner. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the records. 2. The husband of the
S/L 2
06.08.2026
Court No.24
SD
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
WPA 20057 of 2025
Hemika Nath
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Jonaki Saha
… for the Petitioner.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the records.
2. The husband of the petitioner was a Peon of a school. He died-in-harness on 17.10.2010. The Pension Payment Order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 19.06.2014.
3. The petitioner prays for interest on account of the delayed payment of the terminal benefits.
4. In the present case it is noticed that the petitioner has approached this Court long after the Pension Payment Order was issued and payment made in accordance with the same.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India – vs- Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 clearly laid down that in so far as consequential relief of recovery of arrear for the past period is concerned, relief shall be restricted only to a period of three years prior to the filing of the writ petition or from the date of demand made by the petitioner.
6. In the instant case the petitioner did not raise any demand before the respondents praying for release
2 of interest on account of delay in making payment. The petitioner directly approached this Court praying for interest, that too, long after the PPO was issued.
7. In view of the above, the Court is not inclined to exercise jurisdiction in the matter and grant any relief in favour of the petitioner.
8. The writ petition is dismissed.
9. Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)