Sambuddha Chakrabarti JUDGMENT
Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.
1. The petitioner retired as the Director (Finance) of the Institute of Cost Accountant of India, i.e. the respondent No. 1, on June 30, 2016. His grievance is that he has not been paid his retiral dues for a pretty long time. He has mentioned the various components of his retiral dues in the writ petition. He sent electronic mail on November 13, 2016 and subsequently on various dates to the respondent for releasing his retiral benefits.
2. It is the further case of the petitioner that on June 21, 2017 he received a communication from the Deputy Director (HR and Administration), i.e. the respondent No. 7, that the matter relating to the release of retiral benefits was under the purview of the Council of the respondent No. 1 Institute and the Secretary and other officials could act on the decision of the Council. But in the meeting of the Council held on July 21, 2017 it was resolved that the matters relating to release of terminal claims of retired/resigned employees should not be brought before the Council. Hence it was decided to take the agenda item out of its purview. It was further resolved that the administration could follow the rules for payment of terminal claims of the concerned employees and pay their dues in accordance with the rules.
3. The petitioner alleges that in spite of the resolution adopted by the Council of the Institute the administration did not take any step for implementation of the resolution or for disbursing the retiral dues in favour of the petitioner.
4. Therefore, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for a direction, writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to forthwith release the retiral benefits as mentioned in prayer (a) together with interest accrued thereon.
5. On December 13, 2017, when this writ petition was moved, in spite of service none appeared on behalf of the respondents. This Court had directed the Secretary, respondent No. 4 to file a report, in the form of an affidavit, in response to the allegations made in the writ petition. It was further directed that the report must specifically disclose why in spite of the resolution taken by the Council the retiral dues had not yet been disbursed to the petitioner.
6. Pursuant to the said order the Secretary (Acting) of the Institute of the respondent No. 1 had filed an affidavit from which it appears that the Provident Fund dues had been settled in his favour on June 30, 2016 and he had also been receiving pension in terms of the Service Rules of the Institute. However, the Institute was not able to immediately settle the dues of the petitioner with regard to Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Festival Allowance and the balance accumulated in the employees' benevolent fund due to various internal/administrative defects and paraphernalia. In order to overcome the said difficulty the Council of the Institute on December 22, 2017 set a Committee to look into the matter and resolve all cases in which retiral benefits of the Institute's retired employees have not been released.
7. The affidavit of the respondents further records that on January 11, 2018 the remaining retiral benefits of the petitioner have been released by the Institute under various heads as mentioned in the affidavit.
8. Mr. Sanyal, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, did not wish to file any rejoinder to the said affidavit and did not raise any issue about the quantum of the payment made under various heads. But he submitted that he is entitled to interest for the delayed release of the retiral benefits of the petitioner.
9. A major plank of Mr. Sanyal's argument is that the report doesn't mention any reason why the retiral dues of the petitioner have been withheld for more than a year and a half and why despite his repeated requests the respondents did not act either in terms of the resolution of the Council of the Insti........