Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

[3] Another batch of writ petitions led by WP(C) No.126 of 2021 in case of Bhaskar Debbarma versus Agartala Municipal Corporation and others were decided by the learned Writ Court vide judgment dated 27.06.2022. These writ petitioners had approached this Court for a direction upon the respondents to make the full and final payment of gratuity with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date on which gratuity became payable till the date of payment after adjusting lump sum amount of Rs.4,00,000/- already paid. Other ancillary prayers were also made for payment of interest. The petitioner, Bhaskar Debbarma was treated as the lead case by the learned Writ Court to decide the batch of writ petitions. Bhaskar Debbarma pleaded that he 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 of Rs.10,00,000/- as per the amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act. He also contended that he was paid Rs.4,00,000/- earlier as full and final payment of gratuity though his claim was higher. The respondents took a plea that the State had promulgated relevant rules limiting the payment of gratuity under the Pension Rules and had passed the Payment of Gratuity (Tripura Amendment) Bill, 2021 regulating the provisions relating to the payment of gratuity. The said bill, however, necessitated the assent of the President of India as it was a State amendment. They denied the claim of the petitioner of enhanced gratuity of Rs.10,00,000/- under „the Act of 1972‟. On this occasion, the learned Writ Court again considered the decisions rendered earlier in case of Bhupati Debnath versus State of Tripura & others in WP(C) No.1054 of 2019 decided on 13.02.2020; Mamat Singha Roy versus State of Tripura & another in WP(C) NO.1057 of 2019 decided on 13.02.2020; Samir Kumar Ghosh versus State of Tripura & others in WP(C) No.1091 of 2017 decided on 29.05.2020; Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam, Kanpur versus Mujib Ullah Khan and another, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 103 and also the decision of the appellate Court in case of Agartala Municipal Corporation versus Sri Samir Kumar Ghosh & others in WA No.185 of 2020 decided on 29.01.2021 and directed the respondents to calculate the gratuity of the petitioners considering the revised ceiling limit of Rs.10,00,000/- which came into force with effect from 24.05.2010 and pay the remaining gratuity with a simple interest @ 6% per annum for the period after expiry of statutory period of one month from their respective dates of retirement. The learned Court has also made it clear that the gratuity has to be paid considering the last basic pay which includes DA as defined under Section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The respondents were given liberty to examine and determine the claims of each of the 9(nine) petitioners. [4] Another batch of writ petitions led by the case of Smt. Ratna Roy versus the State of Tripura and others in WP(C) No.218 of 2021 came to be decided by the learned Writ Court vide judgment dated 27.06.2022. The lead case of Smt. Ratna Roy (supra) was evidenced by the learned Writ Court while deciding the issue raised herein that petitioner had also sought full and final payment of gratuity with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date on which gratuity became payable till its payment after adjusting lump sum amount of Rs.3,51,750/- and coupled with interest @ 9% per annum. The learned Writ Court issued similar direction in case of Smt. Ratna Roy (supra) by directing the respondents 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. It also directed the respondents to calculate the gratuity of the petitioners considering the revised ceiling limit of Rs.10,00,000/- against those petitioners, who retired on or after the date on which the revised ceiling limit of Rs.10,00,000/- came into force with effect from 24.05.2010 and Rs.20,00,000/- against those petitioners who retired from service on or after 29.03.2018 when the revised ceiling of Rs.20,00,000/- came into force. The remaining amount of gratuity was directed to be paid with simple interest @ 6% per annum for the delayed period after expiry of statutory period of one month from their respective dates of retirement. Respondents were granted liberty to examine and determine the claim of each of the 15(fifteen) petitioners in such manner.

[6.8] All the writ petitioners, barring few, filed their respective writ petitions after 3(three) years from the date of retirement. In some cases there is a delay of 8/9 years in approaching the Hon‟ble Court. Further, for the delay caused in filing of the writ petition, explanation should be given to the satisfaction of the Hon‟ble Court.

[6.9] That, Payment of Gratuity is a one-time financial benefit given to the employees on superannuation or death or resignation as the case may be and there is no continuous cause of action in case of Payment of Gratuity. No recurring loss is suffered by the employees and therefore the writ petitioners ought to have approached the Hon‟ble Court immediately after their retirement. [6.10] That, the petitioners are also estopped from claiming gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 having accepted the gratuity extended to the writ petitioners under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The appellants submit that before the date of retirement of the writ petitioners, gratuity was sanctioned in favour of the writ petitioners under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and 75% of the gratuity was also paid to the writ petitioners. The remaining amount of gratuity was also paid to the writ petitioners after settlement of other retiral benefits. The writ petitioners thus accepted gratuity under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and were in deep slumber for considerable years. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in (1974) 1 SCR 304 titled Parameshwai Prasad Gupta versus Union of India held that the rules of the company expressly purport to bind all the employees of the company. In Punjab and Sind Bank and another versus S. Ranveer Singh Bawa and another, (2004) 4 SCC 484 the Hon‟ble Apex Court applied the law of estoppel on an employee of the bank who opted for VRS and thereafter utilized the payments made to the employee by holding that the employee cannot resile from the VRS opted by the employee. [6.11] That, under Rule 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 an employee is who is eligible for Payment of Gratuity under the Act is to apply within 30 days from the date from which the gratuity became payable in „I‟ to the employer. The first proviso to Rule 7(1) provides that in case of superannuation or retirement the employee may apply to the employer before 30 days of the date of superannuation or retirement. In the present cases none of the writ petitioners made any application to the employer for payment of gratuity before 30 days of the date of superannuation or retirement. Also, there is a provision for appeal under Rule 18 of the Rules to the appellate authority against the decision taken by the controlling authority under Rule 17 of the Rules. The writ petitioners herein did not exhaust the said alternative remedy provided by the Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972 and has approached the Writ Court.

"2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether an employee of the MCD would be entitled to payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act when the MCD itself has adopted the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Rules"), whereunder there is a provision both for payment of pension as well as of gratuity. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this Court is that the payment of pension and gratuity under the Pension Rules is a package by itself and once that package is made applicable to the employees of the MCD, the provisions of payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be held applicable. We have examined carefully the provisions of the Pension Rules as well as the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Payment of Gratuity Act being a special provision for payment of gratuity, unless there is any provision therein which excludes its applicability to an employee who is otherwise governed by the provisions of the Pension Rules, it is not possible for us to hold that the respondent is not entitled to the gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The only provision which was pointed out is the definition of "employee"

in Section 2(e) which excludes the employees of the Central Government and State Governments receiving pension and gratuity under the Pension Rules but not an employee of the MCD. The MCD employee, therefore, would be entitled to the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The mere fact that the gratuity is provided for under the Pension Rules will not disentitle him to get the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. In view of the overriding provisions contained in Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the provision for gratuity under the Pension Rules will have no effect. Possibly for this reason, Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act has conferred authority on the appropriate Government to exempt any establishment from the operation of the provisions of the Act, if in its opinion the employees of such establishment are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act. Admittedly MCD has not taken any steps to invoke the power of the Central Government under Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. In the aforesaid premises, we are of the considered opinion that the employees of the MCD would be entitled to the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act notwithstanding the fact that the provisions of the Pension Rules have been made applicable to them for the purpose of determining the pension. Needless to mention that the employees cannot claim gratuity available under the Pension Rules."