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

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

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

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -