Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura And Another vs Sri Dipak Kumar Bhowmik And Others on 22 February, 2022
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.28/2022
The State of Tripura and another
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Dipak Kumar Bhowmik and others
-----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dipankar Sharma, Addl. G.A.
For Respondent(s) : None.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Order
22/02/2022
(Indrajit Mahanty, C.J.)
Heard Mr. Dipankar Sharma, learned counsel for the State.
The present writ appeal has come to be filed seeking to
challenge an order dated 05.10.2021 passed in WP(C) No.05 of 2021
whereby the Hon'ble Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the
respondents (writ petitioners) who were employees of the Tripura State Co-
operative Union (TSCU, for short) and had retired.
The petitioners had claimed for direction to the respondents to
pay their service benefits as contemplated under Rule 1(29) of the Tripura
Co-operative Societies Employees Service Rules (third amendment) 1995, in
terms of which an employee on his/her retirement would be entitled to
retirement gratuity and cash equivalent to un-utilised earned leave as per the
rules framed from time to time for the Government employees.
The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellants is that the respondents-writ petitioners who were employees of
the TSCU and were not Government employees and since the TSCU faced
financial hardship although some employees who had retired prior to the
respondents-writ petitioners have been extended with the benefit as
committed under Rule 1(29) as noted hereinabove, due to financial hardship
they are unable to comply with the same.
This aspect was taken note of by the Hon'ble Single Judge and
allowed the writ petition with directions to the respondents to release
gratuity as well as un-utilised leave encashment within a period of three
months.
The learned counsel for the appellants reiterated that apart from
giving grants to the TSCU, the State was under no other liability to take up
responsibilities of the TSCU. However, our attention was drawn to the bye-
laws of the TSCU and in terms of the said bye-laws it appears from
Annexure-1 that the TSCU was created under the Tripura Co-operative
Societies Act, 1974 and the aims and objectives of the said Union as
contained in Clause-4 of the said bye-laws are as under:
"4. The objects of the Union shall be to do all
things as may be conductive to the promotion and
development of the Co-operative Movement in the State of
Tripura and to educate, guide and assist the people in the
efforts to build up and expand Co-operative sector and to
serve as an exponent of Co-operative principles and ideas."
All the aforesaid clauses read together would clearly indicate
that the entire responsibility for promoting Co-operative movement in the
State of Tripura was essentially transferred to that of the present employer,
i.e. the TSCU. In other words, by the creation of the TSCU the responsibility
of the State for promotion and development of the Co-operative movement,
education, guidance and assistance in the efforts to set up and expand Co-
operative sector and to serve as an exponent of the Co-operative principles
and ideas and in furtherance of the said objectives various specific heads
were created. It is abundantly clear thereof that when State responsibility is
transferred to a body created by the State itself under the Tripura Co-
operative Societies Act, 1974 it remains the obligation of the State to support
the said institution by giving financial assistance. Even if the contention of
the appellants is accepted that the State was providing grants, there is no
reason why the said grant should not include any liability of the Union
towards its own employees in the event the said Union is in financial stress.
Admittedly, the TSCU continues to exist and perform its duties.
In these circumstances, we find no justification to interfere with
the impugned judgment and accordingly, dismiss the present appeal and
extend the time for compliance of the directions by a further period of two
months.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Pulak
