Present vs For The
2022 Latest Caselaw 975 Tri

                                   Page 1 of 2


                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA
                              WP(C) 989 OF 2022

                         Sri Sudhir Chandra Sarkar
                                     Vrs.
                        The State of Tripura & 3 Ors.

Present:
    For the petitioner (s)      : Ms. Sutapa Deb Barman, Advocate.

     For the respondent (s)     : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.

Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH 22.11.2022 Order Heard Ms. S. Deb Barman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the State- respondent, Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Tripura Handloom & Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd. and Mr. B. Majumder, learned Dy. S.G. appearing for the respondent-Union of India.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was an employee under the respondent nos. 2 and 3. He was retired from service on 31.11.2021 as a Sales Assistant. His grievance is that he was not paid full and final payment of gratuity and leave encashment benefit after adjusting the payment already made. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to the benefit of payment of gratuity as per revised enhanced ceiling limit of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty Lakhs) as per Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2018.

According to Ms. Deb Barman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the reasons the respondents-Corporation Ltd. had assigned in not paying the gratuity and leave encashment benefit was that the Corporation had not adopted the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2018.

Mr. Gautam, learned counsel for the Corporation Ltd. has echoed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Corporation has not

adopted the Central Act. As such, the Corporation is not liable to pay gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner under the said Act.

This issue has already been decided by this Court in several judgments where the court directed the Corporation that it comes within the purview of Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2018. One of such orderswas passed in WP(C) No.1054 of 2019, titled as Sri Bhupati Debnath Vrs. The State of Tripura & 2 Ors.

Since the petitioner retired from service after 2018, he is entitled to receive gratuity as per enhanced ceiling rate of Rs.20,00,000/-.

In view of this, I direct the competent authority of the Tripura Handloom & Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd. to make necessary payment of gratuity to the petitioner after computation of actual payment of gratuity and leave encashment within a period of eight weeks from today.

Needless to say, the gratuity is to be paid within a period of one month from the date of retirement otherwise, the amount will carry interest. For this, the Corporation is liable to pay interest @ 4% per annum for the period such payment is delayed till the date of actual payment.

With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands allowed and disposed.

JUDGE

sanjay