Calcutta High Court
WPA/16182/2025 of MADHUSUDAN KARMAKAR Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 29 July 2026
Item No.39 Subrata Bhattacharyya AR(C) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA No.16182 of 2025 Madhusudan Karmakar -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Ms. Sudipa Banerjee …for the petitioner 1. The petitioner was an approved clerk of a
29-07-2026
Item No.39
Subrata
Bhattacharyya
AR(C)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
WPA No.16182 of 2025
Madhusudan Karmakar
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Sudipa Banerjee …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. The petitioner was an approved clerk of a high school who retired on May 31, 2014. The Pension Payment Order was issued in favour of the petitioner on September 5, 2014. He received gratuity and arrear pension only on November 3, 2014.
2. The petitioner prays for interest on account of the delayed payment of the terminal benefits.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. In the instant case, the petitioner did not raise any demand before the respondents praying for release 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.
6. 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.
7. The writ petition is dismissed.
8. All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
9. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties. [Amrita Sinha, J]
2