Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - (1.) An apparently commonplace question has been brought before me in this challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against Annexure "P2", at page 13 of the writ petition, by which on April 12, 2018the respondent no. 2 has rejected the representation of the petitioner for interest on delayed payment of gratuity amount. The reason assigned is "there is no express provision in any Government Order to grant interest on delayed payment of Gratuity disbursed under ROPA-1998."
(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The writ petitioner reached the age of superannuation on November 30, 2007 and therefore superannuated. Thereafter, he duly intimated the concerned authorities of the school and complied with all formalities to get all the benefits being in the nature of his fruits of labour. He also cooperated with the school authorities for preparing his service book and other formalities for the payment of the said benefits. Though the pension papers were sent to the concerned District Inspector of Schools, admittedly for no fault of the writ petitioner, the matter was kept pending for a long time. Ultimately, the pension payment order, which is Annexure "P1", was issued only on December 3, 2008 as appears from it. However, in the order impugned, dated April 12, 2018, the date of issuance of the pension payment order appears to have been wrongly mentioned as "31-12-2008". This may be an instance of non-application of mind or carelessness, but the merits of the case do not depend upon it. Despite the said pension payment order being issued, the respondent authorities did not actually disburse the amount of such pension and gratuity until February 02, 2009. They however, did not do their duty in the matter of timely releasing the pensionary benefits or paying interest at any rate, far less at the rate of 10% per annum, whether in terms of the Government Circular No.88- WBSE (B) dated May 26, 1988 or the Circular No. 641-F dated January 19, 2004, respectively. The writ petitioner due to financial stringency had to accept such delayed payment without any interest. The writ petitioner thereafter, approached this court, when on April 12, 2018,a coordinate bench directed the respondent no. 2 to treat the said writ petition, bearing No. 5700(W) of 2017, as a representation, to be considered for the purpose of "calculating the interest on the delayed payment of gratuity in accordance with the prevalent rate of interest and pay the same in favour of the petitioner, if the same has not been paid as yet if he is eligible for the same benefits, the same be paid provided there is no legal impediment, within three months from the date of furnishing certified copy of this order after verification of the relevant documents." The order dated April 12, 2018 referred to in paragraph 1 of this judgment by the respondent no. 2 was passed, purportedly in response to the above order.
(3.) Normally the duty to pay gratuity is statutory in India, at least ever since 1972, if a person can show he or she is an employee within the meaning of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in an establishment covered within the meaning of Section 1 of the Act of 1972. However, the situation is not as simple as that in case of "teachers". The petitioner, needless to mention, is claiming the retirement benefits including gratuity for his service as a teacher.;