Tripura High Court
Sri Paritosh Sutradhar And Anr vs The State Of Tripura And Ors on 17 February, 2022
Page - 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.473/2021
Sri Paritosh Sutradhar and Anr.
.......... Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The State of Tripura and Ors.
.......... Respondent(s).
WP(C) No.93/2021
Sri Arun Kumar Singha and Ors
.......... Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The State of Tripura and Ors.
.......... Respondent(s).
WP(C) No.94/2021
Sri Mihir Singha Roy and Ors
.......... Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The State of Tripura and Ors.
.......... Respondent(s).
WP(C) No.474/2021
Sri Dibyajit Paul.
.......... Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The State of Tripura and Ors.
.......... Respondent(s).
Page - 2 of 4
For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. S Deb(Gupta), Advocate,
Mrs. S Nandy, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D Bhattachariya, Govt. Advocate,
Mr. Biswanath Majumder, CGC,
Mrs. P Dhar, Advocate,
Mr. Partha Saha, Advocate,
Mr. Anujit Dey, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
_O_R_D_E_ R_
17/02/2022
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case
is covered by a judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Single Judge of this Court in
WP(C) No.204/2020 dated 27th January 2021 where this Court came to the
following conclusions :
"10. A former notification for amendment by the state government
would dispel the confusion that is reigning for the time being. In
defining „employee‟, it has been provided that the central
government and the state government employees have been excluded
from the definition of employee for purpose of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 if their payment of gratuity is regulated by the
separate Act or the Rules. Those employees who are working under
the central government or the state government would stand
excluded from the definition of employee [see Section-2(1) of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972], in the event if their payment of
gratuity is governed by any other Act or by any Rules providing for
payment of gratuity. In the present case, the state government
employees are governed by Tripura State Civil Services (Revised
Pension) Rules, 2017. As such, the petitioner may not be treated as
Page - 3 of 4
„employee‟ for general purpose of applying the provisions of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The state government shall revisit Rule-9 of the Tripura
State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017 as it appears
emergent in view of the judgment of this court in Bhupati
Debnath(supra) having regard particularly to para-11 of the said
judgment and take the proper decision as regard enhancing
maximum limit, as has been done by the central government vide
their notification dated 29.03.2018. It is expected that the parity in
payment of gratuity be maintained as has been earlier maintained by
the state government in terms of the provisions of Section 4 (3) of
the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. However, until such exercise is
done, and which shall be done within a period of three months from
the date when a copy of this order is made available to the
respondents by the petitioner, gratuity of the petitioner be paid for
the time being on the basis of the maximum limit of Rs.10,00,000/-
within a period of six weeks with interest @ 7% from the day when
that fell due. It fell due on the day after expiry of 30 days from the
date of retirement. There is no dispute about the limit in view of
Rule-9 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules,
2017 which according to the respondents, governs the determination
of the gratuity of the petitioner. The remainder of the gratuity be paid
from the same date when the gratuity fell due i.e. after one month
from the date of superannuation or from any other date as might be
notified, with same rate of interest.
In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed."
Mr. D Bhattacharya, learned Government Advocate appearing for
the State, fairly admits that this matter is covered by the judgment relied on
Page - 4 of 4
by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms with the
directions issued in the connected matter as noted herein above.
Further clarifying that the petitioners are held entitled to get
benefits on such terms as stands determined by this Court in the said
decision.
All necessary consequential actions shall follow. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
( INDRAJIT MAHANTY, CJ )
Sukhendu
