For vs For
2022 Latest Caselaw 305 Tri

                             HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                   AGARTALA
                                  Rev. Pet. 03 of 2022

For petitioner(s)            :      Mr. D Bhattacharjee, GA
                                    Mr. P Saha, Adv

For Respondent(s)            :      None.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Order 14.03.2022

Heard Mr. D Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr. P Saha,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

By means of this writ petition, the State has urged this court to

review the judgment and order dated 08.08.2017 delivered in WP(C) 588 of

2017. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned GA in Tripura Horticulture

Corporation Ltd., the benefit of leave encashment has not been extended. But

by the said order, it has been directed that the leave encashment be paid to

the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of judgment with

interest @ 7% from the date when 30 days from the date of superannuation

has expired.

Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned GA has further submitted that this is

an error apparent in the face of the records, but the foundation of the said

direction is available in para 3 of the said judgment and order dated

08.08.2017. The said paragraph is reproduced for reference hereunder:

"Despite the order dated 24.07.2014, the respondents preferred not to file any reply. Today Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent no 3 has submitted that the Board of Directors of the Corporation has already decided and recommended the payment of gratuity and the leave encashment in favour of the petitioner. Since the Corporation is regulated by Rule 9(xiii) and 15 of the Delegation of the Financial Powers Tripura Rules, 2011 providing that prior concurrence of the Finance Department has to be taken before sanction of allowance, special pay, honorarium, over-time allowances etc. unless covered under any special order issued by the Finance Department. Even the provisions of Clauses (i),

(ii), (iii), (iv), (viii), (x), (xiii), (xxiv) and (xviii) are applicable to the Corporation."

In view of the statement, as referred, the said direction was

issued by this court. As such, this review petition does have any merit.

The review petition accordingly stands dismissed.

Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.

JUDGE

lodh