Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura And Ors vs Sri Amar Ch. Saha on 23 April, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA NO.87 OF 2024
The State of Tripura and ors.
...... Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Amar Ch. Saha.
.......Respondent(s)
(petitioner in writ petition)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, G.A.
Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Mr. K. Nath, Advocate.
Mr. D. Paul, Advocate.
Ms. S. Debbarman, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 23.04.2025.
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
(T. AMARNATH GOUD,J)
Heard Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A.,
appearing for the appellant-State, as well as Mr. P. Roy Barman,
learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Debbarman, learned
counsel, appearing for the respondent.
2. The brief facts of this case are that the writ
petitioner herein i.e. writ petitioner of WP(C) No. 310 of 2021
initially approached this Court seeking directions for the full and
final payment of gratuity and leave encashment benefits. The
petitioner was appointed as a casual worker under the respondents
on 02-05-1989 and was regularized in the post of Orchard Worker
on 03-01-2013. He retired on 30-11-2018 upon attaining the age of
superannuation. His total qualifying service was considered to be 18
years, including 50% of his casual service. At the time of
retirement, his last basic pay was Rs.16.300/-, making him entitled
to Rs.1,69,296/-. However, he was paid only Rs.40,019/- on 05-06-
2018, and no payment was made towards leave encashment for
300 days of earned leave. Respondent No. 3, the Managing Director
of Tripura Horticulture Corporation Limited (in short 'THCL'), filed a
counter-affidavit claiming inability to pay due to financial
constraints and stated that 'THCL' employees were not entitled to
leave encashment. However, the Hon'ble High Court allowed the
writ petition.
3. Subsequently, the State filed a review petition
referring to the order dated 24.04.2023 passed by this Court in
Review Pet. No.04 of 2022 (State of Tripura & Ors. vs. Shri Bikash
Roy) which arose from WP(C) No.617 of 2021 dated 02.12.2021
and had similar operative portions. The review petitioners sought
clarification on the impugned Judgment, but the Court found no
apparent error on record and refused to review the order. The
review petition was disposed of following the same lines as the
earlier Review Pet. No.04 of 2022. Accordingly, the present writ
appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated
20.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in WP(C) No. 310 of
2021 and also the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the Hon'ble
Single Judge in Rev. Pet. No.36 of 2023.
4. Mr. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A., appearing on
behalf of the appellant-State, submits that the appellant is an
employee of the 'THCL', which is governed by the Companies Act,
and therefore the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 would not be
applicable.
To support his argument, the learned counsel relied
to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Diary No. 39779/2024 titled Agartala
Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Ratna Roy and Ors., which
relates to the demand for gratuity.
5. On the other hand, Mr. P. Roy Barman,
learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Debbarman, learned
counsel, submits that the present case pertains to leave
encashment, and the learned Single Judge had directed payment of
leave encashment to the writ petitioner.
In this case, the petitioner was a regular employee
and had unused earned leave. The facts of the case are covered by
the judgment of this Hon'ble Court passed on 09.03.2024 in WP(C)
No. 772 of 2024 and other connected matters.
6. Heard and perused the evidence on record.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent explicitly states that the present matter relates to leave
encashment benefits, and the appellant herein is a regular
employee of 'THCL'. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as
cited by the learned Addl. G.A., pertains to the payment of gratuity
and is not relevant to the fact of the present case. 'THCL' is a
'Corporation', and this Court, in its Judgment passed in similarly
situated case i.e., in WP(C) No. 489 of 2023 dated 26.04.2024
relating to employees of the Tripura Road Transport Corporation
(TRTC), which is also a 'Corporation', and in its the Judgment dated
09.04.2025 as cited supra by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for
the respondent-writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 772 of 2024 and
others, relating to leave encashment benefits for 'THCL' employees,
observed that for any issue between the 'Corporation' and the
State, the employees of the 'Corporation' cannot be deprived of
their legitimate rights.
8. This subject matter is covered by the Order of this
Court in WP(C) No.489 of 2023 dated 26.04.2024. Accordingly,
following the principle laid in the above 'TRTC' case to pay leave
encashment to employees despite there being no rule, this Court
directs to pay the leave encashment in the present appeal.
9. As such, in view of the above-cited Judgments of
this Court, the present writ appeal stands dismissed, confirming the
impugned Judgment and Order as passed by the learned Single
Judge. As a sequel, the stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand closed.
B. PALIT, J T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2025.04.25
SINGHA 15:35:57 +05'30'
