Tripura High Court
Sri Sukhlal Debnath vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 24 November, 2021
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.398/2021
Sri Sukhlal Debnath
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and others
-----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
Order
24/11/2021
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the
respondents at the time of call. The writ petition has come to be filed with
the following prayers:
"(i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to
why writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders
and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued
whereby directing the Respondents to pay interest @9% per
annum on Rs.10,00,000/-, w.e.f., 01.05.2020 to 07.10.2020.
(ii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to
why writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders
and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued
whereby directing the Respondents to pay interest @9% per
annum on Rs.3,79,076/-, w.e.f., 01.05.2020 till the date of
payment.
(iii) Make the rules absolute.
(iv) Call for records.
(v) Pass any further order/orders as this Hon'ble High
Court considered fit and proper."
Although no counsel appeared for the respondents at the time
of call, this Court has perused the reply affidavit filed by the respondents
and in particular, paragraph-8 thereof which is extracted hereunder:
"(8) That, in reply to the statement made in paragraph 9, 12
& 14 of the writ petition it is stated that, the payment of
gratuity amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs was made on 7/10/2020 as
per State Govt. Notification. Since the State Govt. has not yet
implemented a ceiling limit of Rs.20.00 lakhs for its
employees, it is not possible for THHDCL to make gratuity
payment at higher rate."
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a
judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.128 of 2020 whereby a Bench presided
over by Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Akil Kureshi relied upon an earlier
judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Sri Bhupati Debnath Vs.
The State of Tripura and Ors. in WP(C) No.1054 of 2019 decided on
13.02.2020. The said petitioner was also an employee of the Tripura
Handloom and Handicrafts Development Corporation Limited (the present
respondent) and after referring to various provisions in Bhupati Debnath
case, the following findings were arrived at:
" * * *
10. It can thus be seen that insofar as the payment of
gratuity, its computation and the ceiling up to which such
amount can be paid as referred to in Section 4 of the said Act,
the term "appropriate Government" has no bearing. This
distinction is also apparent from the statement of objects and
reasons which provides that for the purpose of uniformity, the
Central Act was envisaged. At the same time, appropriate
Government is for the purpose of administering the Act. The
ceiling limit for payment of gratuity is provided in sub-
section (3) of Section 4. Previously, such ceilings were
contained in the sub-section itself. Pursuant to amendment by
virtue of Act 12 of 2018 the power to prescribe such ceiling
has been vested in the Central Government to be exercised by
issuing notification in this regard. It is in exercise of such
delegated powers of legislation that the Central Government
has issued a notification dated 29.03.2018 which reads as
under:
"S.O. 1420 (E).--In exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), the Central
Government hereby specifies that the amount of
gratuity payable to an employee under the said Act
shall not exceed twenty lakh rupees."
11. This revised ceiling thus would apply to all
establishments irrespective of whether they are controlled or
governed by the State or the Central Government as the
appropriate Government. The stand of the respondents,
therefore, that unless and until such revised ceiling of
payment of gratuity is adopted by the State Government, the
employees of the said corporation cannot claim benefit of
such revised limit cannot be accepted. Revised ceiling limit of
₹20,00,000 (rupees twenty lakhs) would be applicable to the
petitioner.
12. The corporation cannot cite the reason of financial
constraints indefinitely for paying post retiral benefits of its
employees. The petitioner has put in more than 29 years of
service. His service is not governed by the pension scheme.
After his retirement, therefore, he would have only savings in
the form of gratuity, provident fund accumulated in his
account and leave encashment, if any, to fall back upon in his
old age. Such amount must, therefore, be paid over to him as
soon as possible.
13. Under the circumstances, petition is disposed of with
following directions:
(i) As provided earlier, the petitioner shall apply to
the respondent No.2 stating his calculation of payable
gratuity. The respondent No.2 shall examine the petitioner's
calculation and convey to him if any gratuity remains still
payable;
(ii) While calculating such gratuity, revised limit of
₹20,00,000 (rupees twenty lakhs) shall be applicable;
(iii) If there is any shortfall in payment of gratuity,
the same shall be paid within a period of 4(four) months from
today with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from one month
after the date of superannuation till actual payments;
(iv) The remaining amount of leave encashment
shall be released within a period of 4(four) months from
today. The entire leave encashment payment shall carry
simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from one month after the
date of retirement till actual payments;
(v) The gratuity already paid shall also carry simple
interest @ 7.5% per annum from one month after the date of
retirement till actual payments.
14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of."
Under the circumstances, this petition is allowed. It is provided
that the respondents shall pay the remaining sum over and above
Rs.10,00,000/- paid to the petitioner with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum
after completion of one month of his retirement till actual payment.
Petitioner had also made a prayer for release of the leave encashment
benefit. If the said amount has not been released, the said amount shall also
be released in favour of the petitioner within a period as directed.
Petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of.
(INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Pulak
