Wp(C) No.834/2018 vs The State Of Tripura & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 108 Tri

                                  Page 1 of 14




                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA

                          1. WP(C) No.834/2018
Sri Santosh Chandra Chaudhuri
                                                   ----Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
The State of Tripura & others
                                                 -----Respondent(s)

Connected with

2. WP(C) No.836/2018 Sri Chandra Sekhar Kar

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

3. WP(C) No.837/2018 Sri Goutam Majumder

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

4. WP(C) No.838/2018 Sri Tapan Kumar Debnath

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

5. WP(C) No.839/2018 Sri Tapan Majumder

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

6. WP(C) No.840/2018 Sri Rakesh Sinha

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

7. WP(C) No.841/2018 Sri Chandan Kumar Bhowmik

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

8. WP(C) No.842/2018 Sri Ratan Debbarma

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

9. WP(C) No.848/2018 Sri Bisheswar Debnath

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

10. WP(C) No.849/2018 Sri Kishore Debbarma

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

11. WP(C) No.850/2018 Sri Sanjoy Das

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

12. WP(C) No.851/2018 Sri Bachu Mia

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

13. WP(C) No.852/2018 Sri Bishwajit Dey

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

14. WP(C) No.853/2018 Smt. Dipali Das

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

15. WP(C) No.854/2018 Sri Kirit Kishore Rupini

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

16. WP(C) No.855/2018 Sri Parimal Datta

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

17. WP(C) No.856/2018 Sri Haripada Debnath

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

18. WP(C) No.857/2018 Sri Buddha Debbarma

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

19. WP(C) No.858/2018 Sri Bibhas Saha

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

20. WP(C) No.859/2018 Smt. Madhuri Reang

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

21. WP(C) No.908/2018 Sri Sushanta Debnath

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

22. WP(C) No.909/2018 Sri Suchit Roy

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

23. WP(C) No.910/2018 Sri Chandan Ghatak

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

24. WP(C) No.911/2018 Sri Rajib Nandi

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

25. WP(C) No.912/2018 Sri Smarajit Das

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

26. WP(C) No.913/2018 Maman Hossain

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

27. WP(C) No.914/2018 Sri Partha Kumar Deb

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

28. WP(C) No.915/2018 Sri Krishnabashi Debbarma

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

29. WP(C) No.916/2018 Sri Debasish Reang

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

30. WP(C) No.917/2018

Sri Rakesh Sharma

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

31. WP(C) No.918/2018

Sri Sanjib Paul

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

32. WP(C) No.919/2018

Sri Keshab Das

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

33. WP(C) No.920/2018

Sri Binay Bhusan Bhowmik

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarkar, Advocate, Mr. P.K. Ghosh, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

Date of hearing and judgment : 4th February, 2021.

Whether fit for reporting : NO.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

All these petitioners are existing employees of Tripura

Rehabilitation Plantation Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred to

as TRPC Ltd.). Their grievance is that the employer at one stage framed a

pension scheme for all existing employees but subsequently withdrew the

same and in the meantime, a handful of employees who had retired in the

interregnum, got the benefit of the pension scheme.

2. The facts on record would suggest that a Board of Directors of

the Corporation had in its 117th meeting which was held on 15.09.2015

considered agenda item No.5 pertaining to approval for introduction of a

Group Pension Scheme under Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited

for the retirement benefits of the regular employees of TRPC Ltd. The

agenda and the subsequent resolution would show that a scheme was framed

by the corporation for which funds would be parked by the corporation with

the LIC and from such funds the LIC would pay pension to a retiring

employee @ 50% of the last basic drawn. In fact, the corporation also

entered into an agreement with LIC for creation of such a pension scheme.

Perusal of this agreement would show that entire contribution towards the

pension to be paid to the retiring employees would come from the coffers of

TRPC Ltd. Consequently, a notification dated 19.09.2015 was issued which

envisaged payment of pension to a retired employee at prescribed rates. The

corporation had deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- as a initial sum to

operationalize the scheme.

3. All these steps were taken by the corporation without the

approval of the Government. The corporation, therefore, approached the

State Government for ex post facto clearance to the said pension scheme in

which it was pointed out that the Board in its meeting dated 15.09.2015 had

decided to frame a pension scheme. This would raise a requirement of

Rs.16.36 crores for covering existing 170 employees of the corporation out

of which Rs.11.17 crores was already deposited by the corporation with the

LIC from its own resources. The corporation would need further funds from

the Government for the said purpose. The Government conveyed to the

corporation in no uncertain terms in a communication dated 26.09.2018 that

the proposal of the corporation cannot be accepted. The Government would

not fund the pension scheme of the corporation. The corporation has to take

its own decision how to manage its finances looking into the workforce,

profitability etc. It was reiterated that the Finance Department shall not

provide any financial assistance to the TRPC Ltd. for implementation of the

said pension scheme particularly if it is in violation of the rules of financial

discipline. The Government thereupon left the corporation to decide the

future course of action. The corporation thereupon resolved to discontinue

the scheme and revert back to the original regime of gratuity and

contributory provident fund scheme. It has also come on record that

subsequently the Government allowed the TRPC Ltd. to implement the

revised pay structure of its employees on the condition that the corporation

enforces austerity measures and the funds parked with the LIC in various

schemes is brought back to the corporation. Consequently, the corporation

while implementing the revision in pay structure for its employees, also

discontinued the pension scheme permanently and reclaimed the remaining

funds from the LIC. Learned counsel for the corporation clarified that during

the time when these issues were going on, 7 employees had retired from the

corporation and who had for some time also received pensionary benefits as

per the scheme of the corporation, however, upon discontinuation of the said

scheme and withdrawal of the funds of the corporation from the LIC even

these employees no longer received pension.

4. I do not find that the petitioners had made out any case for

issuance of directions for reintroduction of the pension scheme nor any case

of mala fide discrimination has been made out in favour of few chosen

employees. As noted, the corporation had rather hastily framed a scheme

and implemented it also without the approval of the Government which

would be absolutely essential if the corporation relied on Government

funding the scheme. The Government clarified that it would not in any

manner subsidize such a pension scheme of the corporation and it would be

for the corporation either to raise necessary resources for sustaining such

scheme or decide its alternative future course of action.

5. Similar issues had come up before the learned Single Judge of

this Court who had refused to direct the corporation to reframe the pension

scheme upon which the aggrieved retired employees had filed Writ Appeal

No.67 of 2020 and connected appeals which were dismissed by a Division

Bench on 17.11.2020. In the said decision Division Bench after referring to

the factual aspects noted above, had made following observations:

"It can thus be seen that the Corporation though envisaged a new pension scheme for its employees and also took the certain concrete steps in furtherance of this proposal, the pension scheme could not be formalized for want of Government sanction. More importantly, the

Corporation needed financial assistance from the Government to sustain any such scheme for payment of pension, which the Government flatly refused. As noted, the decision that the government conveyed to the Corporation was that it is not obligatory for the State Government to continue to fund to the Corporation and the Corporation has to decide how to manage its finances. It was made clear that the Finance Department shall not provide any financial assistance to Corporation for implementation of any such scheme. It was, therefore, left to the Corporation to decide whether to continue the scheme or to wind it up.

If under such circumstances, it was not possible for the Corporation to proceed further with the implementation of the new pension scheme, no directions can be issued from the Court to the contrary. It is not as if a Corporation was winding up an existing long standing pension scheme to the detriment of its existing employees. Here is the case where out of benevolence the Corporation thought of framing a new pension scheme but which required Government sanction and financial assistance. The Government made it clear that it is under no mood to fund any such pension scheme. It was for the Corporation either to raise funds from its own resources to sustain in the scheme or to wind up the same. Under such circumstances, the petitioners cannot insist that the pension must be paid to them even though the scheme may not be functional. Merely because the Corporation has not yet taken a final decision how to rationalize these conflicting interests, would not mean the petitioners in the interim period should be paid pension. It is

in this context that the learned Single Judge provided that if in future such pension scheme is implemented the petitioners would receive benefit on the same. Contrary to what was argued before us by the counsel for the petitioners, we do not see this as a case where an existing pension scheme is being bound up. Instead this is a case where an attempt on part of the Corporation to frame a new pension scheme failed on account of the Government assistance.

Only question remains of interest on delayed payment of leave encashment. There has been considerable delay in payment of leave encashment though the Corporation had no ground to resist the payment. Learned counsel for the Corporation, however, submitted that since the present litigation was pending, the Corporation had stayed its hands off. Pendency of the petition by a litigant to claim a benefit which is not released by the employer can hardly be a ground to justify non-payment and to avoid the liability to pay interest on the delayed payment.

Under the circumstances, these appeals are allowed only to the limited extent of directing the Corporation to pay simple interest @ 7% per annum on the amount of leave encashment payable to each petitioner for the period between 3 (three) months after retirement till actual payment.

All appeals disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s) if any, also stands disposed of."

6. In the result, these petitions are dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(AKIL KURESHI), CJ

Pulak