Tripura High Court
Sri Bikash Roy vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 2 December, 2021
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.617/2021
Sri Bikash Roy
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and others
-----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, G.A.,
Mr. Partha Saha, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
Order
02/12/2021
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
The grievance of the writ petitioner Sri Bikash Roy is that he
had worked under the respondent No.3, i.e. the Tripura Horticulture
Corporation Limited, a Government undertaking, and he retired on
31.07.2020 after rendering a service for a period of 32 years. It appears that
no payment of gratuity was made in favour of the petitioner in spite of the
mandate of Section 4(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. In response, the
respondent No.3 has filed a counter affidavit in which it has cited financial
hardships on the part of the Corporation as the ground for non-payment of
the claims of the petitioner. In this respect, attention is drawn by the learned
counsel for the petitioner to a judgment rendered by this Court in case of
Smt. Niyati Saha vrs. The State of Tripura and others in WP(C) No.224 of
2018 decided on 18.03.2019. It would be relevant to note herein that Smt.
Niyati Saha was also an employee of the Tripura Horticulture Corporation
Limited and this Court disposed of the said writ petition with the following
directions:
"7. Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel
as well as government notifications, mentioned here-in-above,
at this stage, I am not inclined to issue any specific direction
upon the respondents. However, it is directed that the
respondents, specially, the Finance Department, respondent
no. 4, Government of Tripura, shall release all the benefits
including gratuity and other pensionary benefits, which the
petitioner is entitled to in view of the memorandum dated
16.08.1978 and 28.11.2012 within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of this order. It is also to be noted that
if the gratuity is not released within a period of thirty days
from the date, the statute speaks that the employee concerned
is to be paid interest.
In the backdrop of the discussions and observations
made here-in-above, and in the light of government circulars
issued time to time, the concerned authority is to take decision
within the period as fixed here-in-above.
It is also made clear that while deciding the claim of
the petitioner, the respondents, specially respondent no.4,
Finance Department, Government of Tripura is under
obligation to take note of the decision rendered by this court
on 08.08.2017 in WP(C) 588 of 2017 (Mrs. Hena Rani Das
vs. The State of Tripura and ors) aswell as the decision arrived
by this court in WP(C) 0000373 of 2015 (Gouranga Chandra
Adhikari vs. The State of Tripura and ors).
8. Let the order of this writ petition along with the orders
of this court passed in WP(C) 588 of 2017 and WP(C)
0000373 of 2015 be communicated to Mr. D. Sarma, learned
Additional GA, who after receipt of the judgment of this writ
petition will send the copy to the concerned department for
taking necessary steps, as observed and directed above.
9. With the above observation and direction, the instant
writ petition is disposed of. Liberty is reserved with the
petitioner to approach this court, if she is aggrieved by any
order of the respondents."
Accordingly, since the case is pari materia with the earlier
judgment rendered by this Court, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the
directions contained in paragraphs-7, 8 & 9 noted hereinabove.
Writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any,
also stands disposed of.
(INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Pulak
