Calcutta High Court Mandates Statutory Interest on Delayed Gratuity
Himangshu Karmakar v. Food Corporation of India & Ors. (2025 CHC-AS 1093)

Introduction

In Himangshu Karmakar v. Food Corporation of India & Others, the Calcutta High Court addressed a recurring grievance of retired employees—non-payment of statutory interest on delayed gratuity. The petitioner, a contract labourer who had been judicially recognised as a Class-IV employee of FCI, received his gratuity almost five years after retirement. Although the principal amount was eventually paid, interest was denied by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (“PG Act”) on the ground that there was “no specific prayer.” Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) quashed that refusal, declaring that interest under Section 7(3A) is automatic, mandatory and beyond the discretion of adjudicating authorities.

The judgment not only benefits the petitioner but charts a clear jurisprudential course in West Bengal and beyond: where gratuity is delayed, interest must follow as a matter of statutory right, irrespective of whether the employee specifically asks for it.

Summary of the Judgment

After tracing the litigation history—from the 1997 writ that secured Class-IV parity, through multiple appeals, to eventual payment of gratuity on 04-10-2023—the Court held:

• The Controlling Authority’s refusal to award interest was contrary to the plain language of Section 7(3A) PG Act.
• Section 7(3A) leaves no discretion; once payment is delayed beyond 30 days, simple interest at the notified rate accrues automatically.
• FCI’s protracted litigation amounted to employer-driven delay; hence the statutory proviso (shielding an employer from interest where delay is caused by the employee) did not apply.
• Interest is payable from the day following retirement (01-12-2018) to the actual date of payment (04-10-2023).
• If FCI fails to disburse within 30 days of the judgment, interest on interest (penal rate of 18% p.a.) will be levied— effectively a form of compound interest punitive measure.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1. W.P. No. 1491(W)/1997 & subsequent appeals (1998–2000)
   These proceedings first regularised the petitioner’s status and pay. The Supreme Court’s dismissal of FCI’s civil appeals in 2000 cemented the finding that contract labour performing perennial work is entitled to parity with permanent employees.
2. Civil Appeal 9472-9473/2003 (SC, 14-01-2010)
   The apex court explicitly extended “all consequential and retiral benefits” to the labourers, creating a foundation for claiming gratuity and, by necessary implication, interest on any delayed payment.
3. Atul Chandra Mahata v. State of West Bengal (Cal HC, 27-11-2003)
   A Single Bench had earlier granted statutory interest on delayed gratuity, emphasising that the Act overrides departmental rules.
4. Section 14 PG Act – Overriding Effect Clause
   This statutory provision itself operates as a ‘standing precedent’, trumping any FCI internal regulation purporting to limit gratuity or interest.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Literal Interpretation of Section 7(3A)
   The Court adopted a textual approach: the word “shall” in Section 7(3A) is mandatory; no adjudicatory latitude exists. Whether or not an employee “prays” for interest is irrelevant because the right arises ex lege on the 31st day after gratuity becomes due.
2. Rejection of Discretionary Approach
   The Controlling Authority attempted to exercise equitable discretion by citing “no specific prayer” and “facts of the present case.” The Court declared such discretion ultra vires, thus reinforcing legislative supremacy over administrative equity in gratuity matters.
3. Employer-Driven Delay Doctrine
   By cataloguing FCI’s repeated appeals and writ petitions—even after defeat up to the Supreme Court—the judgment inferred that delay was entirely employer-created, negating the proviso that exempts interest where delay is “due to the fault of the employee.”
4. Penal Interest (Interest on Interest)
   The Court innovatively imposed a secondary interest @ 18% p.a. if FCI defaults on payment within 30 days. While the PG Act speaks only of simple interest on the principal, the High Court relied on its constitutional writ jurisdiction to craft an additional deterrent, aligning with Supreme Court dicta that courts may impose higher interest for contumacious conduct (e.g., Alok Shankar Pandey v. Union of India, 2007).

C. Impact of the Judgment

• Strengthening Employee Rights – The ruling clarifies that interest is an intrinsic component of gratuity. Employees need not plead it; adjudicators must compute it suo motu.
• Administrative Practice – Controlling and Appellate Authorities under the PG Act in West Bengal (and persuasively elsewhere) must revise their formats and standard orders to include interest calculations automatically.
• Litigation Strategy for Employers – The “interest on interest” clause signals that dilatory litigation can become financially punitive, urging employers to settle gratuity dues promptly.
• Contract Labour Jurisprudence – By reinforcing that long-term contract workers, once deemed employees by court order, are entitled to full post-retiral benefits, the decision strengthens the trend towards substantive equality between contract and direct employees.
• Predictability in Writ Practice – Future writs concerning delayed gratuity in the Calcutta High Court will likely rely on Karmakar as a ready precedent, potentially expediting hearings by obviating debate on interest entitlement.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Gratuity – A lump-sum terminal benefit payable to an employee for long and continuous service, governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
• Controlling Authority – A labour-department officer (often an Assistant Labour Commissioner) empowered to adjudicate disputes over gratuity under Section 7(4).
• Section 7(3A) Interest – A statutory simple interest (rate notified by the Central Government) automatically added when gratuity is not paid within 30 days of becoming due.
• Interest on Interest (Penal Interest) – Not found in the Act; rather, a judicially crafted sanction compelling an employer to pay additional interest on the overdue interest if it ignores the court’s direction.
• Overriding Effect (Section 14) – A clause that makes the PG Act prevail over any contrary rule, contract, or regulation, including those of public sector entities like FCI.
• Writ of Mandamus – An order from a constitutional court directing a public authority to perform a statutory duty. Here, the High Court issues mandamus compelling FCI to pay interest.

Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court’s judgment in Himangshu Karmakar is a textbook affirmation that statutory benefits cannot be diluted by either administrative discretion or procedural technicalities. By ruling that interest under Section 7(3A) of the PG Act is per se payable and by penalising further delay with an 18% surcharge, the Court sends a clear message: employees’ post-retiral dues are sacrosanct and procrastination is costly.

Going forward, both private and public employers must review their gratuity practices to ensure payment within the statutory window. Controlling Authorities, likewise, must disabuse themselves of any perceived discretion on interest. Ultimately, Karmakar advances the rule of law by transforming what some considered a gratuitous benevolence into an enforceable legal certainty.