Tripura High Court
Smt. Ratna Roy (Aged 63 Years) vs The State Of Tripura (To Be Represented ... on 27 June, 2022
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 22
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
(1) WP(C) No. 218 of 2021
Smt. Ratna Roy (aged 63 years),
D/o- Lt. Surjya Kr. Roy,
R/o Chandrapur Nath Para,
PO- Reshambagan, PS-East Agartala,
Pin-799008
---Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Tripura (to be represented by)
the Principal Secretary,
Urban Development Department, Govt. of Tripura,
New Capital Complex,
New Civil Secretariat Building Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799010
2. Agartala Municipal Corporation, (to be represented by)
the Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala
West Tripura, PIN-799001
3. The Municipal Commissioner,
AMC, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001
4. The Secretary,
Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura,
New Capital Complex,
New Civil Secretariat Building Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010
---Respondents
(2) WP(C) No. 125 of 2021
Sri Milan Chakraborty (aged 63 years), S/o: Lt. Jagadish Chakraborty R/o: Madhya Badharghat, Milan Chakra, P.O: A.D Nagar, Agartala, Tripura, West, PIN: 799003
---Petitioner Versus Page 2 of 22
1. Agartala Municipal Corporation, (to be represented by) the Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001
2. The Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001
3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010
---Respondents (3) WP(C) No. 128 of 2021 Sri Shimal Chandra Saha(aged 67 years), S/o: Lt. Jagyeshwar Saha R/o: Town Prataphgarh, Ramthakur Road, Near Udayaman Sangha, P.O: Agartala College, P.S: East Agartala, PIN: 799004
---Petitioner Versus
1. Agartala Municipal Corporation, (to be represented by) the Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001
2. The Municipal Commissioner, Agartala Municipal Corporation(AMC), Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001
3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010
---Respondents (4) WP(C) No. 131 of 2021 Sri Salil Deb (aged 67 years), S/o- Lt. Pulin Behari Deb, R/o: Joynagar, H.G. Basak Road, Battala, PS- West Agartala, PIN: 799001
---Petitioner Versus Page 3 of 22
1. Agartala Municipal Corporation, (to be represented by) the Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001
2. The Municipal Commissioner, Agartala Municipal Corporation(AMC), Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001
3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010
---Respondents (5) WP(C) No. 132 of 2021 Sri Jalal Ahmed, (aged 66 years), S/o- Lt. Maijja Mia, R/o: Masjid Road, Santipara, PS- East Agartala, PO- Agartala, PIN: 799001
---Petitioner Versus
1. Agartala Municipal Corporation, (to be represented by) the Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala West Tripura, PIN-799001
2. The Municipal Commissioner, Agartala Municipal Corporation(AMC), Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001
3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010
---Respondents (6) WP(C) No. 133 of 2021 Sri Gopal Ch. Sen, (aged 65 years), S/o- Lt. Basanta Kumar Sen, R/o: West Lane of Shibnagar Gedumiah Masjid, PO- Agartala College, Agartala, PIN: 799004
---Petitioner Versus Page 4 of 22
1. Agartala Municipal Corporation, (to be represented by) the Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala West Tripura, PIN-799001
2. The Municipal Commissioner, Agartala Municipal Corporation(AMC), Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001
3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010
---Respondents (7) WP(C) No. 134 of 2021 Sri Dipak Kr. Nandi, (aged 65 years), S/o- Lt. Ramesh Ch. Nandi, R/o: 278 Amader Club Road, Bardowali, Arundhutinagar, Dist.: West Tripura
---Petitioner Versus
1. Agartala Municipal Corporation, (to be represented by) the Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala West Tripura, PIN-799001
2. The Municipal Commissioner, Agartala Municipal Corporation(AMC), Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001
3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010
---Respondents (8) WP(C) No. 135 of 2021 Smt. Suchitra Paul (Saha), (aged 65 years), W/o: Sri Rabindra Ch. Saha R/o: Ramnagar, Road No. 8, PS- West Agartala,
---Petitioner Versus Page 5 of 22
1. Agartala Municipal Corporation, (to be represented by) the Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala West Tripura, PIN-799001
2. The Municipal Commissioner, Agartala Municipal Corporation(AMC), Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001
3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010
---Respondents (9) WP(C) No. 169 of 2021 Sri Krishna Gopal Dey, (aged 66 years), S/o- Lt. Surya Kumar Dey, R/o: Krishnanagar, Natun Palli PS- West Agartala, PIN: 799001.
---Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Tripura (to be represented by) the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, New Civil Secretariat Building Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799010
2. Agartala Municipal Corporation, (to be represented by) the Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala West Tripura, PIN-799001
3. The Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001
4. The Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, New Civil Secretariat Building Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010
---Respondents Page 6 of 22 (10) WP(C) No. 170 of 2021 Sri Badal Kumar Choudhuri, (aged 67 years), S/o- Lt. Bidhu Bhusan Choudhuri C/o: Ashok Kr. Choudhury R/o: Vill and P.O: Shyam Sundar Para, East Pratapgarh, PIN: 799004
---Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Tripura (to be represented by) the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, New Civil Secretariat Building Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799010
2. Agartala Municipal Corporation, (to be represented by) the Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala West Tripura, PIN-799001
3. The Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001
4. The Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, New Civil Secretariat Building Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010
---Respondents (11) WP(C) No. 171 of 2021 Sri Nitai Majumder, (aged 67 years), S/o- Lt. Ram Kali Majumder R/o: Village West Pratapgarh Near United Club, P.O: AD Nagar, P.S: AD Nagar
---Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Tripura (to be represented by) the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, New Civil Secretariat Building Complex, Kunjaban, Page 7 of 22 Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799010
2. Agartala Municipal Corporation, (to be represented by) the Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001
3. The Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001
4. The Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, New Civil Secretariat Building Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010
---Respondents (12) WP(C) No. 172 of 2021 Sri Bijoy Choudhury, (aged 68 years), S/o- Lt. Ramendra Kr. Choudhury R/o: Radhamadhab Sarani, Dhaleswar P.S: East Agartala
---Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Tripura (to be represented by) the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, New Civil Secretariat Building Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799010
2. Agartala Municipal Corporation, (to be represented by) the Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001
3. The Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001
4. The Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, New Civil Secretariat Building Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010
---Respondents Page 8 of 22 (13) WP(C) No. 173 of 2021 Sri Raghunath Sarkar, (aged 76 years), H/o- Lt. Kanan Deb Sarkar, R/o: Melarmath, PO- Agartala P.S: West Agartala, Pin- 799001
---Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Tripura (to be represented by) the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, New Civil Secretariat Building Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799010
2. Agartala Municipal Corporation, (to be represented by) the Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala West Tripura, PIN-799001
3. The Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001
4. The Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, New Civil Secretariat Building Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010
---Respondents (14) WP(C) No. 178 of 2021 Smt. Geeta Paul (Biswas), (aged 62 years), W/o: Arabinda Biswas, R/o: Natun Palli, near Chatra Sangha club, Krishnanagar, P.O: Agartala, P.S: West P.S
---Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Tripura (to be represented by) the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, New Civil Secretariat Building Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799010 Page 9 of 22
2. Agartala Municipal Corporation, (to be represented by) the Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001
3. The Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001
4. The Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, New Civil Secretariat Building Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010.
5. The Accountant General ( A & E) Kunjaban, P.O: Kunjaban, PIN:799006
---Respondents (15) WP(C) No. 179 of 2021 Sri Pranab Nandi, (aged 66 years), S/o: Lt. Pankaj Behari Nandi R/o: Bankim Sarani, Old T.G Road, Ramnagar, Agartala, Dist.: West Tripura, Pin: 799002
---Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Tripura (to be represented by) the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, New Civil Secretariat Building Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799010
2. Agartala Municipal Corporation, (to be represented by) the Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001
6. The Municipal Commissioner, AMC, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001
7. The Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, New Civil Secretariat Building Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010
---Respondents Page 10 of 22 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH 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. P.K. Dhar, Sr. G.A. Ms. S. Nag, Advocate Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, Advocate Mr. H. Sarkar, Advocate Date of hearing and delivery of judgment & order : 27.06.2022 Whether fit for reporting : NO JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Since common question of facts and law is involved in all the writ petitions, with the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties, these were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment at the admission stage itself.
For sake of convenience, WP(C) No.218 of 2021 is taken up as lead case as urged by learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. The reliefs claimed in this lead case are as under:
"(i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents Page 11 of 22 to make the full and final payment of Gratuity with interest @9% per annum to the Petitioner w.e.f. the date on which gratuity became payable till date of payment after adjusting lump sum amount of Rs.3,51,750/- already paid.
(ii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to pay interest @9% per annum on Rs.1,70,595/-, w.e.f., 01.01.2019 to 03.01.2020.
(iii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to pay interest @9% per annum on Rs 43,834/- w.e.f. 01.09.2019, till the date of actual payment.
(iv) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby quashing and cancelling the notification, dated, 14.08.2003, issued by the Commission and Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Tripura.
(v) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby quashing and canceling the notification, dated, 05.05.2009, published by the Finance Department, Govt of Tripura.Page 12 of 22
(v)(a) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other order/orders shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to count 50% of the service rendered by the Petitioner w.e.f. 03.05.1988 till his regularization on 01.11.2000 along with the regular service rendered by the Petitioner from 01.11.2000 to 31.12.2018 for determining the qualifying service years rendered by the Petitioner necessary for calculation of death-cum- retirement gratuity(DCRG).
(vi) Make the rules absolute.
(vii) Call for records.
(viii) Pass any further order/orders as this Hon'ble High Court considers fit and proper."
3. The case of the petitioner, as stated in the writ petition, in brief, is that she joined in service under the respondents as DRW on 03.05.1988. Thereafter, her service was regularized on 01.11.2000. She retired from service as Multi Purpose Supervisor (MPS) on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2018.
3.1. The petitioner referring to Memo. dated 16.08.1978, 26.09.1979, 19.07.1982 and 25.02.2010 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura, claimed that 50% of the service rendered by her w.e.f. 03.05.1988 till her regularization on Page 13 of 22 01.11.2000 i.e. 6 years, is to be counted along with the regular service rendered by her w.e.f. 01.11.2000 to 31.12.2018 for determining the qualifying service necessary for calculation of gratuity.
3.2. Thus, it is the claim of the petitioner that the total period of service of the petitioner is twenty four years, i.e. six years and eighteen years.
3.3. It is stated by the petitioner that her last basic pay was Rs.28,570/-. The respondents vide sanction order dated 29.12.2018 released an amount of Rs.2,24,989/- being 75% of the total provisional retirement gratuity of Rs.2,99,985/- in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents vide sanction Memo.
dated 03.01.2020, again released an amount of Rs.74,996/- in her favour as final retirement gratuity. The respondents, thereafter, vide Memo. dated 31.01.2020 again sanctioned Rs.51,765/- being less payment of retirement gratuity as per 7th CPC of total retirement gratuity in favour of the petitioner.
3.4. Thus, an amount of Rs.3,51,750/- was paid to the petitioner as full and final payment of gratuity, though it is the claim of the petitioner that she is entitled to get Rs.3,95,584/- as full and final payment of gratuity along with interest as per enhanced ceiling limit of gratuity at Rs.10,00,000/- amended vide Page 14 of 22 Act of 2010 dated 24.05.2010, enhancing the ceiling limit of gratuity from Rs.3,50,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. It is further pleaded that the Payment of Gratuity Act was further amended vide Act of 2018 enhancing the ceiling limit from Rs.10,00,000/-
to Rs.20,00,000/- which came into force w.e.f. 29.03.2018.
3.5. It is the claim of the petitioner that the respondents in calculating the amount of gratuity of the petitioner did neither take into consideration the enhanced ceiling limit of Rs.10,00,000/- which came into force w.e.f. 24.05.2010 nor the ceiling limit of Rs.20,00,000/- which came into force w.e.f.
29.03.2018.
3.6. The petitioner submitted representation to the respondents on 24.08.2020 requesting payment of gratuity on the basis of the ceiling limit at Rs.10,00,000/- taking into consideration the last basic pay plus D.A. with interest for deferred payment of gratuity.
4. The State-respondents by filing counter affidavit have stated that the petitioner was provided gratuity as per Rule 50, Rule 10(1-B), CCS(TS) Rules, 1965 and Rule 50, GID(8) Pension Rules, and thus payment of gratuity at Rs.10,00,000/- is not permissible as per ROP Rules issued by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura vide notification dated 5th May, 2009. It is Page 15 of 22 also stated by the State-respondents that the ceiling limit of gratuity at Rs.4,00,000/- was effected from 01.01.2009 and the ceiling limit of Rs.10,00,000/- was given by the Central Government for Central Government employees w.e.f.
24.05.2010. The petitioner was an employee of Agartala Municipal Corporation and the AMC was/is following the ROP Rules of the State Government issued by the Finance Department from time to time.
4.1. In their counter affidavit the State-respondents have also stated that gratuity is paid to the employees for the period of regular service and since the petitioner was regularized on 06.11.2000 and retired on 31.12.2018, she had served in regular post only for 18 years and accordingly her gratuity was calculated and paid to her taking into consideration the ceiling limit at Rs.4,00,000/-.
5. I have heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee and Mr. K. Nath, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned Sr. G.A., assisted by Ms. S. Nag, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-AMC.
Page 16 of 226. Almost similar claims have been raised by all the petitioners as titled here-in-above. Some of the employees are retired after 24.05.2010, that is, the date from which upper ceiling limit for payment of gratuity to the employees was revised and fixed at Rs.10,00,000/-, and some of the petitioners are retired after 29.03.2018, the date from which ceiling limit was further revised and enhanced to Rs.20,00,000/-.
It will be imperative to mention the date of retirement of each of the writ petitioners and their respective claim in a tabular form, for convenience:
Sl. Writ petition No. & Date of Entitled No. Name of writ petitioner retirement amount of gratuity 1 WP(C) No.218 of 2021, 31.12.2018 Rs.3,95,584/- Ratna Roy 2 WP(C) No.125 of 2021, 31.01.2017 Rs.10,67,700/- Milan Chakraborty 3 WP(C) No.128 of 2021, 31.01.2012 Rs.2,11,830/- Shimal Chandra Saha 4 WP(C) No.131 of 2021, 30.06.2015 Rs.1,70,389/- Salil Deb 5 WP(C) No.132 of 2021, 30.06.2014 Rs.6,29,293/- Jalal Ahmed 6 WP(C) No.133 of 2021, 30.06.2015 Rs.8,13,966/-
Gopal Ch. Sen 7 WP(C) No.134 of 2021, 31.10.2011 4,25,547/- Dipak Kr. Nandi 8 WP(C) No.135 of 2021, 30.09.2015 Rs.9,02,558/- Suchitra Paul(Saha) 9 WP(C) No.169 of 2021, 30.04.2015 Rs.4,53,496/- Krishna Gopal Dey 10 WP(C) No.170 of 2021, 30.04.2014 Rs.3,20,423/- Badal Kr. Choudhuri 11 WP(C) No.171 of 2021, 31.10.2014 Rs.7,14,407/- Nitai Majumder 12 WP(C) No.172 of 2021, 31.10.2011 Rs.4,25,547/-
Page 17 of 22Bijoy Choudhury 13 WP(C) No.173 of 2021, 31.07.2014 Rs.1,83,553/-
Raghunath Sarkar 14 WP(C) No.178 of 2021, 31.10.2019 Rs.8,51,538/-
Geeta Paul Biswas 15 WP(C) No.179 of 2021, 31.01.2015 Rs.3,85,692/-
Pranab Nandi
7. Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners at the very outset has contended that the issue of maximum amount of gratuity of the employees of the State as well as its different corporations/bodies has been decided by this Court in the cases of Bhupati Debnath vs. State of Tripura & Ors.[WP(C) No.1054 of 2019, decided on 13.02.2020], Mamata Singha Roy vs. State of Tripura & Anr.[WP(C) No.1057 of 2019, decided on 13.02.2020], Lal Zakim Rokhum vs. Tripura Road Transport Corporation & Ors.[WP(C) No.1209 of 2019, decided on 20.02.2020], and finally in the case of Samir Kumar Ghosh vs. State of Tripura & ors.[WP(C) No.1209 of 2019, decided on 29.02.2020].
Relying on the above decisions, learned senior counsel has prayed for directing the respondents to release full and final payment of gratuity with deferred payment of interest applying the revised ceiling limit as applicable to each of the petitioners considering their dates of retirement.
Page 18 of 227.1. On the issue of counting past service of the petitioners which was rendered by them for the purpose of retiral benefits including pension, Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel has referred a decision of this Court in Samita Saha vs. State of Tripura & Ors.[WP(C) No.1138 of 2019, decided on 12.03.2020], wherein this Court relying on its earlier decision in the case of Smt. Sandhya Banik & Ors. vs. The State of Tripura & Ors.[WP(C) No.71 of 2011 and connected petitions, decided on 24.01.2017] and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Mamata Rani Roy(Saha) vs. The State of Tripura & Ors.[WP(C) No.77 of 2015, decided on 08.07.2015] had occasion to direct the State-respondents to count 50% of the past service as qualifying service for pension.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Dhar, learned Sr. G.A. appearing on behalf of the State-respondents and Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the Agartala Municipal Corporation(AMC) submitted that the employees of AMC are not covered by the amended Rule of Gratuity revising the upper ceiling limit to Rs.10,00,000/- vide notification 24.05.2010 and Rs.20,00,000/- as amended vide Act of 2018 dated 29.03.2018.
As such, according to learned counsels appearing for the respondents, the writ petitioners are not entitled to the upper Page 19 of 22 ceiling limit of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- as revised vide above notifications.
9. In reply, Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel strongly contended that AMC is well covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act as amended time to time by the Central Government and all the writ petitioners, being the employees of this establishment are entitled to get gratuity in terms of the upper ceiling limit as revised time to time according to their respective dates of retirement.
10. I have carefully gone through the averments made in all the writ petitions as well as the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the judgments relied on by Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners.
11. On going through the decision of this Court in Samir Kumar Ghosh(supra), it comes to fore that the petitioner of that writ petition was serving under Agartala Municipal Corporation as LDC, and on his retirement gratuity was sanctioned by the AMC taking into consideration the ceiling limit of Rs.4,00,000/- and the learned Single Judge referring to its earlier decision in Bhupati Debnath(supra) and the case of Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur vs. Ram Shankar Yadav & Anr., (2019) 6 SCC directed the Page 20 of 22 respondents-AMC to calculate the gratuity of the petitioner applying revised ceiling limit of Rs.10,00,000/-. The said decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Agartala Municipal Corporation vs. Sri Samir Kumar Ghosh & 2 Ors.[WA No.185 of 2020, decided on 29.01.2021].
12. On perusal of the decision rendered in Samita Saha(supra), it comes to light that the learned Single Judge considering all legal and factual aspects allowed the said petition holding that the respondents-State as well its agencies/establishments, that is, Corporations/PSUs come within the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 along with its amendment carried out time to time by the Central Government as afore-stated and directed the respondents to count 50% of the past service of the petitioner towards qualifying service for the purpose of providing pensionary benefits including gratuity.
13. In view of the above discussions and the principles laid down therein, it is re-iterated that the AMC-respondent no.2 is well covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act and the amendment carried out by the Central Government revising the upper ceiling limit to Rs.10,00,000/- is applicable to the employees of the said Corporation. As a corollary, all the petitions filed by the above named writ petitioners deserve to be allowed.
Page 21 of 2213.1. The respondents are directed to count 50% of the service rendered by the petitioners till their regularization in service along with the regular service period rendered by them for determining the qualifying service years for calculation of death-
cum-retirement gratuity.
13.2. The respondents are also directed to calculate the gratuity of the petitioners considering the revised ceiling limit of Rs.10,00,000/- against those petitioners, who retired from service on or after the date on which revised ceiling limit of Rs.10,00,000/- came into force i.e. on 24.05.2010 and Rs.20,00,000/- against those petitioners who retired from service on or after the date i.e. on 29.03.2018 and such remaining amount of gratuity payable to the petitioners shall carry simple interest @6% per annum for the delayed period after expiry of statutory period of one month from their respective dates of retirement.
13.3. It is made clear that the gratuity has to be paid considering the last basic pay which includes dearness allowance as defined under Section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Section 2(s) reads as under:
"2(s). "wages" means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employments and which are Page 22 of 22 paid or are payable to him in cash and includes dearness allowance but does not include any bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance."
13.4. The respondents are given liberty to examine and determine the claim of each of the 15(fifteen) petitioners as are reflected in tabular form at para 6 of this judgment keeping in mind the aforesaid observations and directions.
13.5. After such computations, payment shall be made within 6(six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order.
14. All the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the above.
Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of.
JUDGE