Tripura High Court
Smt. Gouri Chankraborty And Ors vs The State Of Tripura And Ors on 4 January, 2021
Page - 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.1/2021
Smt. Gouri Chankraborty and Ors.
.......... Appellant(s).
Vs.
The State of Tripura and Ors.
.......... Respondent(s).
WA No.2/2021
Sri Benu Bhusan Das.
.......... Appellant(s).
Vs.
Tripura Jute Mill Ltd. and Ors.
.......... Respondent(s).
WA No.3/2021
Sri Debasish Guha Roy
.......... Appellant(s).
Vs.
The State of Tripura and Ors.
.......... Respondent(s).
WA No.10/2021
Sri Timir Baran Chakraborty
.......... Appellant(s).
Vs.
Tripura Jute Mill Ltd. and Ors.
.......... Respondent(s).
Page - 2 of 5
WA No.11/2021
Sri Nipul Kanti Paul
.......... Appellant(s).
Vs.
Tripura Jute Mill Ltd. and Ors.
.......... Respondent(s).
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P Roy Barman, Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P K Dhar, Sr. Govt. Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. S G CHATTOPADHYAY
_O_R_D_E_ R_
04/01/2021
(Akil Kureshi, CJ).
These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 29th May, 2020 in WP(C) No.1172/2016 and other
connected petitions. The appellants were original petitioners. In the
petitions, the petitioners have made several prayers regarding payment of
pension under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 without applying the ceiling. The petitioners had
also raised disputes about the computation of gratuity, leave encashment
and non-granting of the benefit of Assured Carrier Progression(ACP).
These later reliefs relate to the fact that all the petitioners though were
employed by Tripura Jute Mills Limited, were sent on deputation to Rural
Development Department from where they retired.
Page - 3 of 5
In this appeal, the grievances of the appellants are primarily
twofold. First grievance is with respect to certain observations made by
the learned Single Judge for verification of the higher contribution by the
employer/employee to the Provident Fund Organization upon which the
pension could be paid to the appellants-petitioners by lifting the ceiling.
The second limb of the appellants' grievance is that certain prayers though
made in the petitions, have not been decided by the learned Single Judge.
These prayers are as under :
" * * *
(iii) Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a
writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders
direction/directions shall not be issued whereby directing the
Respondents No.1 to 3 to cause full and final payment of gratuity of
the Petitioner with interest for deferred payment of the arrear
amount after determining the amount of gratuity on the basis of
last basic pay and wages which the Petitioner had drawn from
Rural Development Department before his retirement from service
on superannuation.
(iv) Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a
writ in the nature of mandamus and/or order/orders
direction/directions shall not be issued whereby directing the
Respondents No.1 to 3 to cause full and final payment of leave
encashment benefit to the Petitioner with interest for deferred
payment of the arrear amount after determining the amount of
leave encashment benefit on the basis of last basic pay and wages
which the Petitioner had drawn from Rural Development
Department before his retirement from service on superannuation.
Page - 4 of 5
(v) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a
writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders
direction/directions shall not be issued whereby directing the
Respondents to give the benefit of Assured Career
Progression(ACP), to the Petitioner on completion of 10 years in
the post of LDC, being on deputation, in the RD Department, and
in consequence thereof provide consequential service benefit to the
petitioner by re-fixing the gratuity and other benefits with interest
@ 9% per annum after adjusting the benefits already drawn by the
Petitioner."
At this stage, we are inclined to request the learned Single Judge
to decide on the above noted three prayers made by the petitioners. Since
these issues would require examination of documents, materials and
affidavits on record, we are reluctant to do so at the first instance in these
appeals.
While we request the learned Single Judge to do so, we would
not examine the question of the observations made with respect to
granting the pension to the petitioners-appellants without applying the
ceiling. Let all issues be first decided by the learned Single Judge before
we apply our mind to the surviving grievances of the appellants in one
consolidated proceedings.
Under the circumstances, without disturbing the findings and
conclusions of the learned Single Judge with respect to the petitioners'
prayer for payment of pension without applying the ceiling, the
Page - 5 of 5
proceedings are remanded before the learned Single Judge for the limited
purpose of deciding the above noted three prayers which are remained
undecided. Once this is done, it would be open for the appellants to file
fresh appeals on all surviving issues. If such appeals are filed within the
period of limitation prescribed after the fresh decision of the learned
Single Judge, there would be no necessity of filing condonation petitions
even with respect to the remaining prayers.
Since we have merely requested the learned Single Judge to
render decision on undecided issues, we have adopted this course of
action after hearing learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Mr. P K Dhar who
appears for the State-authorities without issuing a formal notice upon the
Tripura Jute Mills Ltd.
All appeals are disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if
any, also stands disposed of.
( S G CHATTOPADHYAY, J ) ( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )
Sukhendu
