Tripura High Court
Wp(C) No.306/202 vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 20 January, 2022
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
1. WP(C) No.306/2021
Sri Phani Bhusan Roy
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and others
-----Respondent(s)
2. WP(C) No.307/2021
Sri Churamani Malakar
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and others
-----Respondent(s)
3. WP(C) No.308/2021
Sri Sachindra Majumder
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and others
-----Respondent(s)
4. WP(C) No.309/2021
Sri Sudhangshu Kr. Ghosh
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and others
-----Respondent(s)
5. WP(C) No.310/2021
Sri Amar Ch. Saha
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and others
-----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate,
Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, G.A.,
Mr. S. Saha, Advocate,
Mr. P. Saha, Advocate,
Mr. Anujit Dey, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
Order
20/01/2022
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners, places reliance on two judgments rendered by this Court in the
case of Gouranga Ch. Adhikari vrs. The State of Tripura & others in
WP(C) No.373 of 2015 disposed of on 05.07.2016 and in the case of Mrs.
Hena Rani Das vrs. The State of Tripura & others in WP(C) No.588 of
2017 disposed of vide judgment & order dated 08.08.2017 as well as on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Niyati Saha vrs. The State of
Tripura & others in WP(C) No.224 of 2018 disposed of on 18.03.2019.
3. While relying on the aforesaid judgments, Mr. Roy Barman,
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the issue
raised herein being covered by the judgments as cited hereinabove are
binding and the present cases should be disposed of in terms of the
directions issued therein.
4. Learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted
that insofar as the cases of Gouranga Ch. Adhikari (supra) and Mrs. Hena
Rani Das (supra) are concerned, the State have filed review applications
which are pending consideration before the appropriate Court. Further
learned Government Advocate submits that insofar as the judgment in the
case of Smt. Niyati Saha (supra) is concerned, there is no specific direction
for payment of leave salary.
5. This Court does not think it necessary to keep the present cases
pending since two binding precedents already exist in the matter and the
petitioners herein were also employees of the same organisation i.e. the
Tripura Horticulture Corporation Limited which was the employer in the
cases of Gouranga Ch. Adhikari (supra) as well as Mrs. Hena Rani Das
(supra). Accordingly, this Court thinks it appropriate to dispose of the
present writ petitions in terms of directions made in case of Mrs. Hena Rani
Das (supra).
6. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents
are directed to release the full amount of gratuity and the leave encashment
to the petitioners within a period of 3(three) months from today with interest
@ 7% per annum after one month from the date of their superannuation. It
is made clear that at the time of payment of gratuity if any sum has already
been paid that amount shall be deducted from the entire gratuity entitled to
the petitioners. However, this Court also makes it clear that the petitioners
herein shall also abide by the outcome of the review applications said to
have been filed by the State in the aforesaid two cases. This Court further
makes it clear that if the petitioners so inclined, they may also intervene in
the said review applications.
7. With the above observations and directions, the writ petitions
are disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Pulak
