Sri Samir Kr. Ghosh vs Dr. Siddharth Shiv Jaiswal
2021 Latest Caselaw 233 Tri

                                Page - 1 of 3



                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA

                        Cont. Cas(C) No.67/2020

Sri Samir Kr. Ghosh.
                                                        ......... Petitioner(s).
                                    Vs.
Dr. Siddharth Shiv Jaiswal, IAS.
                                                      ......... Respondent(s).

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. A Debbarma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S Deb, Advocate, Mr. K K Pal, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

_O_R_D_E_ R_ 25/02/2021

This contempt petition is filed by the original petitioner, a retired

employee of Agartala Municipal Corporation(AMC). In the petition, he

had disputed the action of the employer in applying the ceiling of

Rs.4,00,000/- in payment of gratuity. The petition was allowed. It was

declared that the revised ceiling as per the Payment of Gratuity Act of

Rs.10,00,000/- will apply since the petitioner had retired after the

amendment in the Act.

This contempt petition was filed on the premise that the AMC

had not acted on the judgment of the High Court. Pending the contempt

petition, the AMC has released further payment of Rs.4,14,190/- inclusive Page - 2 of 3

of interest over and above originally paid Rs.4,00,000/-. The petitioner

was still dissatisfied. According to the petitioner, he had worked for more

than 39 years. His gratuity, therefore, had to be calculated on the basis of

40 completed years of service. The petitioner's computation of payable

gratuity, therefore, comes to Rs.10,04.353/- and therefore, he should have

been paid a full some of Rs.10,00,000/- as per the then prevailing ceiling.

The petitioner also has further claim of interest on unpaid amounts.

AMC, however, has not applied the formula for computation of

gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act but has gone by Government

of Tripura notifications and on the basis of which according to AMC, the

gratuity works out to Rs.7,18,608/-. The major difference in the rival

calculations is that the petitioner adopts 40 years of completed service

whereas according to AMC, as per the Government of Tripura

notification, for the purpose of gratuity service cannot exceed more than

33 years. That is a minor difference under the Act as well as under the

notification with respect to the multiplier.

Learned counsel, Ms. A Debbarma, submitted that the petitioner

was governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act and therefore, any

notification of the Government which is in inflict with the provisions of

the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot prevail. However, this is a question

which cannot be gone into a contempt petition. Since this issue never Page - 3 of 3

arose in the main petition and was therefore not decided by the High

Court, let the petitioner file a fresh petition upon which after pleadings

from both sides the Court can take a legal view.

With these observations, contempt petition is closed.

( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )

Sukehendu