Calcutta HC Orders Authorities for Payment of Pension, Says Pensions Are Not Treated as Bounty Payment

Must Read

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector &...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Follow us

The petitioner of the present case, Nisi @ Nishi Prodhan v. The State of West Bengal, is the wife of a deceased employee who worked for Berhampore Municipality. He belonged to the Group ‘D’ category. She approached this court to claim the pension amount which is due from 2011. The bench constituted of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha. The court ordered the authority to pay within 10 weeks. They wanted the authorities to pay an interest of 6% for the delayed payments.

Facts of the case

The petitioner filed this present petition against them for non-payment of pension. The petitioner’s husband retired from service on August 31st 2010 and the authority disbursed the pension amount in 2011. The pension amount to be paid was Rs 2,16,405. The municipality managed to pay the first instalment of Rs 14,150. However, the petitioner’s husband died in 2014. Since then the pension accrued was Rs 2,02, 255. 

The authorities failed to pay the amount until 2020. Aggrieved by this act, the petitioner filed the present petition requesting the court to order the authorities for paying the remaining amount. 

Arguments of the Petitioner

The counsel of the petitioner mentioned the disparity in payment with due records. The petitioner’s counsel prayed for directing the authority to pay the remaining amount at the earliest. 

Arguments of the Respondents

The Respondent’s counsel pointed out the current financial situation faced by them is the main reason for the non-payment of pension. He pointed out that the Municipality had no intentions to defraud the petitioner and the financial situation that they faced is what prevented them from releasing funds on time. He also mentioned to the court that the matter was heard on August 6th 2020, where they mentioned the same situation to the court. However, the matter was not adjudicated and new dates were given. 

The Court’s decision

The court considered the facts and arguments presented before it. His lordship pointed out that pension is a fundamental right of the employee and not to be acknowledged as a mere bounty payment for services. The payment of pension is to acknowledge the effort the employee has taken while working with the organisation. Hence the court directed the authority to pay the remaining amount within 10 weeks from this order. The court also ensured that amount paid is with 8% interest for the delay for all these years. 

His Lordship also added a penalty clause in the event of default. He stated that if the authorities fail to make the payment then an interest of 10% will be charged until the date of actual payment. Concerning the arrear amount pending, the court ruled that the payment has to be made with an interest of 6%. In the event of default, an interest of 8% will be charged against the authority as a penalty.  

The court also ordered the State government to ensure that there are sufficient funds made available for the municipality to pay the pension amount. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -