Tripura High Court
Sri Bhaskar Debbarma(Aged 64 Years) vs Agartala Municipal Corporation on 27 June, 2022
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 15
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
(1) WP(C) No. 126 of 2021
Sri Bhaskar DebBarma(aged 64 years),
S/o: Lt. Prabhat Ch. Debbarma
R/o: Old Kalibari Lane, Krishnanagar,
P.S: West Agartala, P.O: 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
(2) WP(C) No. 127 of 2021 Sri Dibakar Choudhury(aged 65 years), S/o: Lt. Dhananjoy Choudhury R/o: Ramnagar Road No: 2, P.O: Ramnagar P.S: West Agartala, PIN: 799002
---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 Page 2 of 15 (3) WP(C) No. 129 of 2021 Sri Dilip Acharjee (aged 65 years), R/o: Mantribari Road Extension, Town Bardowali, 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 (4) WP(C) No. 130 of 2021 Smt. Santi Rani Kalai(aged 67 years), W/o:. Padmamohan Kalai Singh, R/o: Bijoy Kumar School Road, Krishnanagar P.S: West 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 Page 3 of 15 (5) WP(C) No. 174 of 2021 Sri Sekhar Bhattacharjee, (aged 76 years), S.o- Lt. Sashi Mohan Bhattacharjee, R/o: West Bhati Abhoynagar, Paschim Para, Barjala Road, P.S: West Agartala, 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
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 (6) WP(C) No. 175 of 2021 Sri Kilal Ch. Laskar, (aged 68 years), S/o: Lt.Jaladhar Ch. Laskar, R/o: Motor Stand, Sanitala, P.S: East Agartala, P.O: 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 Page 4 of 15
1. 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 (7) WP(C) No. 176 of 2021 Smt. Gita Deb (Ganguly), (aged 66 years), W/o: Lt.Biswanath Ganguly, R/o: Kunjaban Colony, P.S: East Agartala, P.O: Abhoynagar, 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 5 of 15 (8) WP(C) No. 177 of 2021 Sri Subhash Chandra Biswas, (aged 66 years), S/o: Lt.Joy Chandra Biswas R/o: Joynagar Madhya Lane, Near Juba Samaj Club, P.S: West 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 (9) WP(C) No. 415 of 2021 Sri Nitai Dey, (aged 66 years), S.o- Lt. Barada Charan Dey, R/o: Ward No. 14, Lake Road, Near Debendra Medical hall, Sub-Division- Sadar, Dist- West Tripura, 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, AMC, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001 Page 6 of 15
3. The Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, New Civil Secretariat Building Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010
---Respondents 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.126 of 2021 is taken up as lead case as urged by learned counsels appearing for the parties.
Page 7 of 152. 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 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.4,00,000/- 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.6,38,578/-, w.e.f. 31.10.2016 to 24.04.2018.
(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 5,38,578/- w.e.f. 31.10.2016 till the date of payment.
(iv) Make the rules absolute.
(v) Call for records.
(vi) Pass any further order/orders as this Hon'ble High Court considered fit and proper."Page 8 of 15
3. The case of the petitioner, as stated in the writ petition, in brief, is that he joined in service under the respondents as Lower Division Clerk on 20.10.1981. He retired from service as Office Superintendent on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2016.
3.1. Total period of service of the petitioner is 35 years. It is stated by the petitioner that his last basic pay was Rs.25,400/-
and DA was Rs.21,082/-. The respondents vide sanction order dated 19.09.2016 released an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- being 75% of the total provisional retirement gratuity of Rs.4,00,000/-
in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents vide Memo. dated 24.04.2018, informed the petitioner about payment of remaining amount of gratuity of Rs.1,00,000/-.
3.2. Thus, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- 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.9,83,578/- as full and final payment of gratuity along with interest as per enhanced ceiling limit of gratuity at Rs.10,00,000/- amended vide 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 Page 9 of 15 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.
3.3. 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.
3.4. 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 respondents by filing counter affidavit have stated that the State has promulgated the relevant rules limiting the payment of gratuity under the Pension Rules and in furtherance thereof the State of Tripura has passed the Payment of Gratuity(Tripura Amendment) Bill, 2021( Bill of 2021) regulating the provisions relating to the payment of gratuity. The said bill proposes to make a State amendment of sub-section(3) of Section 4 of the existing Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 necessitating the requirement of assent of the President of India according to Article Page 10 of 15 254(2) of the Constitution of India. The respondents thus denied and disputed that the petitioner became entitled to Rs.10,00,000/-
as full and final payment of gratuity as claimed by the petitioner.
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.
6. Almost similar claims have been raised by all the petitioners as titled here-in-above. All of them 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/-.
It will be imperative to mention hereunder 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.126 of 2021, 30.09.2016 Rs.9,83,578/-
Bhaskar Debbarma 2 WP(C) No.127 of 2021, 31.01.2016 Rs.9,45,464/-
Dibakar Choudhury Page 11 of 15 3 WP(C) No.129 of 2021, 30.04.2016 Rs.8,04,467/- Dilip Acharjee 4 WP(C) No.130 of 2021, 31.07.2012 Rs.5,25,628/- Santi Rani Kalai 5 WP(C) No.174 of 2021, 31.01.2011 Rs.5,16,683/- Sekhar Bhattacharjee 6 WP(C) No.175 of 2021, 31.10.2011 Rs.3,81,375/- Kajal Ch. Laskar 7 WP(C) No.176 of 2021, 31.01.2015 Rs.6,85,569/- Gita Deb Ganguly 8 WP(C) No.177 of 2021, 30.04.2015 Rs.9,92,353/- Subhash Ch. Biswas 9 WP(C) No.415 of 2021, 30.04.2015 Rs.8,25,203/- Nitai Dey
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 interest for delayed payment after the Page 12 of 15 expiry of statutory period of 1(one) month applying the revised ceiling limit as applicable to each of the petitioners considering their dates of retirement.
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. As such, according to learned counsels appearing for the respondents, the writ petitioners are not entitled to the upper ceiling limit of Rs.10,00,000/- even though the petitioners were retired after the introduction of revised ceiling limit which came into force w.e.f. 24.05.2010.
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.
Page 13 of 1510. I have carefully gone through the averments made in all the writ petitions as well as the submissions of learned counsels appearing on behalf of their respective parties.
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 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. In view of the above discussions and the principles laid down therein, it is re-iterated that the AMC-respondents No.1 and 2 are 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/- as stated above is applicable to the employees of the said Corporation. As a corollary, all the Page 14 of 15 petitions filed by the above-named writ petitioners deserve to be allowed.
12.1. The respondents are directed to calculate the gratuity of the petitioners considering the revised ceiling limit of Rs.10,00,000/- which came into force i.e. on 24.05.2010 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.
12.2. 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 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."
12.3. The respondents are given liberty to examine and determine the claims of each of the 9(nine) petitioners as are reflected in table at para 6 of this judgment keeping in mind the aforesaid observations and directions.
Page 15 of 1512.4. Payment shall be made within 3(three) months from the date the copy of this judgment is furnished to the respondents, particularly, the respondents No.1 and 2 herein.
13. All the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the above.
Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of.
JUDGE