Tripura High Court
Mr. P. Roy Barman vs Mr. D. Sarma on 14 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 311/2021
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate
Mr. K. Nath, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. GA
Mr. BS Bhowmik, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
14/09/2021
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K.
Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned
Additional GA appearing for respondents No. 1 and 4, and Mr. BS
Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3.
The matter relates to payment of gratuity. On consent of the parties
appearing for the parties to the lis, I have taken up the matter for final
disposal at the admission stage itself.
The facts in brief, are that, the petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased
employee Anita Das (Roy), who expired on 12.08.2020 during her service
under Tripura Handloom & Handicrafts Development Corporation Limited
(for short, THHDC). The total period of service of the deceased employee
was 36 years. Rs. 68,400/- was the last basic pay of the deceased employee.
As per the enhanced ceiling limit of gratuity, the petitioners became entitled
to Rs.14,20,615/- as full and final payment of gratuity. Out of that amount
Rs. 10 lakh had been paid to the petitioners due to the death of late Anita
Das. Being aggrieved, the petitioners, being the legal heirs of deceased
employee, Anita Das, have filed the present writ petition asking this court
for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of the gratuity in
consonance with the circular dated 29.03.2018 issued in the Gazette of India,
whereby and where under, the rate of gratuity had been enhanced.
Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has
submitted that since Anita Das died after the circular dated 29.03.2018,
enhancing the rate of gratuity, the respondents were liable to pay the gratuity
to the petitioners at the enhanced rate as per the circular.
Mr. Sarma, learned Additional GA and Mr. BS Bhowmik, learned
counsel at the same tune had submitted that late Anita Das, being the
employee under the respondents no. 2 and 3 i.e. THHDC Ltd., was not
entitled to get gratuity at the enhanced rate as the said establishment had not
adopted the said circular.
A learned Single Judge of this Court on 13.02.2020, while disposing of
the similar writ petition bearing No. WP(C) 1054 of 2019 [Sri Bhupati
Debnath versus The State of Tripura & others] at paragraph 11, had
observed thus:-
"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".
Having held so, the learned coordinate Bench, in paragraph 13 made the
following reliefs:-
"13. (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".
In view of the aforesaid direction and the reliefs granted to the petitioners
in WP(C) 1054 of 2019, the issue now is well settled.
The present case is squarely covered by the said judgment. In this case
also, it is the plea of the respondents that the establishment has not adopted
the said circular enhancing the ceiling limit regarding rate of gratuity.
In view of the settled position regarding adoption of the circular dated
29.03.2018, the respondents are under obligation to pay the gratuity to the
petitioners at the enhanced rate.
Having viewed thus, I direct the respondents to calculate such gratuity
considering the ceiling limit of Rs. 20 lakh to the petitioners within a period
of 3 (three) months from today. Needless to say, the amount payable to the
petitioners in terms of enhanced ceiling limit as stated here-in-above shall
carry interest @7% per annum.
The petitioners stated in the writ petition that they are entitled to get Rs.
14,20,615/- as full and final payment of gratuity, which may be examined by
the respondents in the process of calculation regarding payment of gratuity
at the ceiling limit. It is surfaced in the writ petition that the respondents
have already paid Rs. 10 lakh to the petitioners. The respondents shall also
pay the interest on the said amount of Rs. 10 lakh for the period they could
not pay the same within the statutory period of 1 (one) month.
With the aforesaid observation and directions, the instant writ petition
stands allowed and disposed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Saikat
