Sri Bhabatosh Chandra Dey vs Tripura Rehabilitation And
2022 Latest Caselaw 510 Tri

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                 AGARTALA
                              WP(C)No.403 of 2020
      Sri Bhabatosh Chandra Dey,
      son of late Bhupesh Chandra Dey,
      resident of Chandipur,
      P.S. Kailashahar,
      District: Unokoti, Tripura

                                                        ............ Petitioner (s)
                                 -Versus-
1.   Tripura Rehabilitation and
     Plantation Corporation Limited,
     a Government of Tripura undertaking,
     represented by its Managing Director,
     TRTC Limited, Pandit Nehru Complex,
     P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, P.S. West
     Agartala, District: West Tripura, 799
     006
2.   The Managing Director,
     Tripura Rehabilitation and
     Plantation Corporation Limited,
     Agartala, a Government of Tripura
     undertaking,     Agartala,  P.S. West
     Agartala, District: West Tripura, 799
     006
3.   The Chairman,
     Tripura Rehabilitation and
     Plantation Corporation Limited,
     Agartala, a Government of Tripura
     undertaking,     Agartala,  P.S. West
     Agartala, District: West Tripura, 799
     006
4.   LICI of India (P & GS) Unit,
     Silchar Division

                                               ............ Respondent(s)

For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Adv. For the Respondent (s) : Mr. D. Sarkar, Adv.

Mr. P. K. Ghosh, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL]

18.05.2022

Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel

appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 and Mr. P. K. Ghosh,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.

2. This writ petition is the sequel of the previous writ

petitions. The petitioner had filed the first writ petition being

WP(C)No.1347 of 2016 challenging the departmental proceeding

which was drawn up by the memorandum dated 04.12.2020

[Annexure-P/4 to that writ petition] on a series of imputations and

misconduct, spread over in these articles of charge. This court

having observed that the said departmental proceeding is

absolutely without authority and illegal and cannot stand the

scrutiny of law, inasmuch as the Principal Secretary, General

Administration (Administrative Reforms) Department, Government

of Tripura did not have any authority and control over the

petitioner who had been an employee of Tripura Rehabilitation

Plantation Corporation Ltd., for short TRPC Ltd. (the respondent

No.2 herein).

3. In that proceeding, the counsel for the corporation had

submitted that pension of the petitioner cannot be released under

the Form 10D and Form 19 unless those are forwarded to the EPF

Commissioner. Accordingly, the Corporation respondents had

contended that the petitioner might be advised to submit the claim

form through his formal employer to derive both the benefits under

the EPF and MPF Act, 1952 and also other benefits from the TRPC

Ltd.

4. It was directed to release the financial benefits including

pension to the petitioner as per entitlement within three months.

Even though, the said judgment was not challenged by the

respondents, but they did not pay any financial benefit as at the

relevant point of time, the petitioner was defending himself against

the criminal prosecution being GR Case No. 334 of 2009 under

Section 409 IPC.

5. The petitioner, as a matter of fact, was convicted by the

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kailashahar, Unakoti Judicial

District in the said case and later on, the said judgment was

reversed by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.12.2019

passed in Criminal Appeal No. 04(02) of 2019. As a result, the

petitioner was relieved of the scourge of the judgment of

conviction.

6. It may be noted that the judgment of the Sessions

Judge, whereby the petitioner was acquitted from the charge under

Section 409 IPC was challenged by the State by an appeal under

Section 378 (3) of the CrPC being Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2020.

The said appeal was dismissed by the judgment dated 02.12.2021.

7. Today, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner has placed a copy of that order before this court.

According to the petitioner, he is entitled to pension under the

scheme of the TRPC Ltd. which had been introduced in

collaboration with the Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.,

LICI, for short (the respondent No.4 herein).

8. As the petitioner did not get any benefits in terms of the

judgment dated 21.12.2017, he had filed another writ petition

being WP(C) 24/2019. By the order dated 08.04.2019 the following

direction was issued by this court:

"I direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the representations of the petitioner keeping in mind the judgment dated 21.12.2017 passed in WP(C) No. 1347 of 2016, in accordance with the existing law prevalent in the TRPC Ltd., within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

But no positive result yielded.

9. On 29.06.2019, the petitioner received a communication

(Annexure-12 to the writ petition) disposing his representations

dated 12.10.2018, 18.08.2018 & 04.12.2018. The crux of the

decision is available in para 7 of the said communication dated

29.06.2019. It has been observed in the said passage that as per

the settled principle of law and as per CCS (Pension) Rules, the

Gratuity and Leave Salary cannot be released to the petitioner as

he had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Kailashahar, Unakoti Judicial District for misappropriation of huge

money of the Corporation amounting to Rs.18,16,000/- as Field

Supervisor along with another Parendra Debbarma, TFS, the then

Deputy Manager, TRPC Ltd, North Zone.

10. It is undisputed that the petitioner has been relieved of

the scourge of conviction as the Sessions Judge reversed the

judgment dated 28.03.2019 by which the petitioner was convicted

under Section 409 IPC and the said order of reversal has not been

interfered with by this court in the appeal against acquittal.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit for his

retirement.

11. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 has stated that the petitioner cannot

be entitled to any pension as the scheme that was introduced by

the TRPC Ltd., has been recalled with retrospective effect as the

Government of Tripura has refused to provide any fund for that

purpose.

12. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel today has produced a

communication of the Life Insurance Corporation of India dated

05.02.2020 issued by the Branch Manager (P&GS), LICI, Silchar

Divisional Office. In the said communication dated 05.02.2020 it

has been clearly stated as follows:

"As per your request the Competent Authority approved the final withdrawal of the Scheme NGCAB-410000436 and accordingly an amount of Rs.11,70,81,501/- (Rupees Eleven Crore Seventy lakhs Eighty One Thousand Five Hundred and One only) has been disbursed on 13/11/2019 towards Final withdrawal Claim on the basis of Fund Value Available as on 30/09/2019 and again on 16/01/2020 the interest due for the period 01/10/2019 to 13/11/2019 has been disbursed on 13/01/2020 for Rs.8,89,695/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Five Only)."

13. According to Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent No.4, that for the said disbursal the LIC has taken

off their hand from the scheme and nobody will be entitled to get

any pension under the scheme anymore and the operation has

been withdrawn retrospectively. The said scheme is identified as

NGCAB-410000436.

14. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner has stated that a few persons got the benefit of that

scheme. When the petitioner had retired from the Corporation-

respondent, the petitioner would have reaped the benefit of that

scheme. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has also pointed out

that the petitioner is not getting any pension from the EPF.

15. There cannot be any amount of doubt that the petitioner

will be entitled to pension from EPF but for that purpose, in the

earlier writ petition, the Corporation-respondents had requested

the petitioner through this court to fill up the requisite forms for

forwarding those to the EPF Commissioner. In this regard, Mr.

Bhattacharjee could not shed any light from the records.

16. Be that as it may, the petitioner is entitled to the

following benefits:

(1) Gratuity

(2) Leave Salary

(3)Pension from the EPF

17. The petitioner shall check and file the claim form for the

pension though the Corporation respondent to have the pension

from EPF, if the petitioner is not getting the same yet. So far the

leave salary and gratuity are concerned, the Corporation-

respondents shall release those amounts within a period of three

months from today with interest.

18. So far as the leave salary is concerned, the interest will

be @5% from the date when the petitioner was acquitted from the

charge by the judgment dated 19.12.2019. So far as the gratuity is

concerned, the interest will be @7.5% from the said date till the

payment is made.

19. It has also been pointed out by Mr. Bhattacharjee,

learned counsel that the petitioner is also entitled to some benefits

from the Group Saving Life Insurance. This may not be directly the

responsibility of the Corporation, but for any reason, if the

Corporation has any control over that fund, and the petitioner is

entitled to any amount therefrom, that shall also be released

during the said period.

20. Having observed thus, this writ petition stands allowed

to the extent as indicated above.

The records as produced by Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel

be returned.

There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Moumita