Tripura High Court
Sri Haridhan Debnath vs The State Of Tripura on 25 June, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 TRI 230
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 190 of 2016
Sri Haridhan Debnath,
son of late Bipin Chandra Debnath,
of Sonamura, P.O. R.K. Pur, District : Gomati Tripura
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary cum Commissioner,
Fisheries Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex,
Secretariat Building, Lichubagan, P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, West
Tripura
2. The Director of Fisheries,
Government of Tripura, P.N. Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala,
West Tripura
3. The Principal Secretary,
Finance Department, Government of Tripura,
New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura
4. The Chief Executive Officer,
Fish Farmers' Development Agency,
Udaipur, Gomati District, P.O. R.K. Pur.
----Respondents(s)
Connected with WP(C) 191 of 2016 Smti. Malati Bhawal, wife of Sri Chandan Aine, Udaipur Madhyapara, P.O. R.K. Pur, District : Gomati, Tripura
----Petitioner(s) Versus
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary cum Commissioner,Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, Secretariat Building, Lichubagan, P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura
2. The Director of Fisheries, Government of Tripura, P.N. Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, West Tripura
3. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura, Page 2 of 5 New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Fish Farmers' Development Agency, Udaipur, Gomati District, P.O. R.K. Pur.
----Respondents(s) Connected with WP(C) 659 of 2016 Sri Rafique Miah Sarkar, son of late Akram Uddin Sarkar, of Udaipur, Near Jagannath Dighi, P.O. R.K.Pur, District: Gomati, Tripura
----Petitioner(s) Versus
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary cum Commissioner, Fisheries Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, Secretariat Building, Lichubagan, P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura
2. The Director of Fisheries, Government of Tripura, P.N. Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, West Tripura
3. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura. New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Fish Farmers' Development Agency, Udaipur, Gomati District, P.O. R.K. Pur.
----Respondents(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. R. Purakayastha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Chowdhury, G.A. Mr. T.D. Majumder, Advocate Whether fit for Reporting : NO Page 3 of 5 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Judgment & Order 25.06.2018 Heard Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.
2. The petitioners herein have retired as the employees of Fish Farmers' Development Agency, Gomati District. According to the petitioner, the employees of other Fish Farmers' Development Agency from other districts are getting the benefit of gratuity but in their case that was not acceded to by the society which is substantially funded by the Government of Tripura through the Director of Fisheries for welfare of the Fish Farmers.
3. In this regard, Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the memorandum dated 15.01.2014 under No.F.1(2)/FFDA(WT)/2013-14/1815- 1819. On reading of the memorandum dated 15.01.2014, it appears that sanction of Payment of gratuity has been recorded in favour of one Raj Kumar Chakraborty who had retired as the Night Guard of the Fish Farmer's Development Agency on his superannuation.
4. Ms. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when the Fish Farmers' Development Agencies are working being substantially funded by the state government, there should be an equal policy for all the employees working under those agencies. Page 4 of 5
5. On the other hand, Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 has submitted that those agencies are not covered by the definition of establishment as provided in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 vide Section 1(3) or Section 3(a) of the said Act. That apart, Central Government has not extended the said Act to the Fish Farmers' Development Agency under Section 1(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Not even the society has decided to provide the gratuity to its employees on superannuation or retirement on any other form.
6. Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 has also supported that all the Fish Farmers' Development Agencies are not providing the gratuity. And as such, the petitioners are not entitled to get any gratuity.
7. Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though it is not a discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India but while drawing up the policy, the government should extend the equal treatment to the similarly situated persons and thus it is the deficit of the policy. It requires to be cured having referred to Article 39 of the Constitution of India.
8. Having appreciated the submissions made by the learned counsel, the respondents are directed to explore whether the similar benefit of the payment of gratuity can be extended to the employees who retired from the Fish Farmers' Development Agencies of various districts. Such decision may be taken within a period of 6(six) months from the day when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order to the respondents. Page 5 of 5
In terms of the above, all these writ petitions are disposed of.
JUDGE Sabyasachi B