Benu Ram Neog and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/8

¶2

GAHC010153342024

¶3

undefined

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/3845/2024

¶6

BENU RAM NEOG AND 7 ORS SON OF LATE NANDIRAM NEOG, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 03, NEAR FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI, PINKAMRUP(METRO), 781019, ASSAM.

¶7

2: SRI NIREN CHANDRA KAIBARTA SON OF LATE SANDHYA KAIBARTA

¶8

RESIDENT OF RAMPUR

¶9

KHIDIR PUKHURI P.S. PALASBARI P.O. RAMPUR

¶10

PIN781132

¶11

KAMRUP(METRO) ASSAM

¶12

3: SRI SUREN CHANDRA KALITA SON OF LATE PITHURAM KALITA

¶13

RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 56 PUB SHANTI NAGAR

¶14

Page No.# 2/8

¶15

GUWAHATIKAHILIPARA

¶16

781019 KAMRUP(METRO) ASSAM 4: SMTI ANILA DAS WIFE OF LATE BIREN CHANDRA DAS RESIDENT OF P.O. KURUA DISTRICT - DARRANG

¶17

ASSAM.

¶18

5: SMTI RADHIKA TARO WIFE OF LATE KIRAN TARO RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 227 KAHILIPARA 10 A.P. GATE GUWAHATI- 781019 KAMRUP(METRO) ASSAM. 6: SRI DASARATH KALITA SON OF LATE RATNESWAR KALITA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 12 JANAKPUR SUROJ PATH KAHILIPARA GUWAHATIKAMRUP(METRO) 781019 ASSAM.

¶19

Page No.# 3/8

¶20

7: SMTI JAYA DEKA WIFE OF LATE SUNIL DEKA RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 4 NEAR DISHA EYE CLINIC HATIGAON KAMRUPA PATH HATIGAON GUWAHATI-781038 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 8: SMTI SMITA ROY WIFE OF LATE P.K. ROY RESIDENT OF KRISHNA NAGAR HOUSING COLONY

¶21

BUILDING NO. 3 IMT BIT ROOM NO. 3 CHANDMARI GUWAHATI781003 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM VERSUS

¶22

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

¶23

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

¶24

Page No.# 4/8

¶25

DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS GUWAHATI-781006. DISPUR

¶26

3:THE DIRECTOR OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

¶27

DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 ASSAM

¶28

4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

¶29

5:JYOTI CHITRABAN (FILM STUDIO) SOCIETY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19

¶30

6:THE SECRETARY JYOTI CHITRABAN (FILM STUDIO) SOCIETY KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 1

¶31

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G RAHUL, MR. D M NATH

¶32

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, J TALUKDAR (R-5,6),MR M BORO(R-5,6),MS. J GAYAN(R-5,6),MR. R ALI(R-5,6),SC, FINANCE

¶33

BEFORE

¶34

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Date : 04.09.2025

¶37

Heard Mr. G. Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Mr. A. Chaliha, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 4; and Mr. M. Boro, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

¶38

Page No.# 5/8

¶39

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to forthwith pay their legally entitled gratuity amount at the earliest.

¶40

3. Mr. Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are retired employees of Jyoti Chitraban (Film Studio) Society, which was established by the Government of Assam in the year 1961, for production of Assamese as well as other local films of the region, which was registered as a ‘society’ under the Societies Registration Act, bearing Registration No. 59 of 1973-74, financed and controlled by the Government of Assam. Mr. Rahul also submits that the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and late husbands of the petitioner Nos. 5 and 7, were former employees of the Jyoti Chitraban (Film Studio) Society/respondent No. 5 and they already retired on superannuation, and after their retirement, they have not been paid the entitled gratuity amount. Mr. Rahul further submits that they had also submitted several representations for payment of the gratuity amount, but the same failed to evoke any response from the respondent authorities, and such inaction on the part of the respondent authorities has violated the right of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and besides the petitioners are also facing severe financial hardship.

¶41

3.1. By referring to a judgment and order, dated 14.09.2023, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 6546/2010 (Akon Chandra Gogoi and 11 Ors. Vs. State of Assam and 2 Ors.) and other connected writ petition, Mr. Rahul submits that similarly situated employees of Jyoti Chitraban (Film Studio) Society had preferred the aforementioned writ petitions before this Court and they were granted the benefit by this Court, and thereafter, the

¶42

Page No.# 6/8

¶43

authorities had also paid the same to them, and under such circumstances, Mr. Rahul has contended that similar relief may be granted to the present petitioners, who are also similarly situated with the petitioners of WP(C) No. 6546/2010 and other connected writ petition, and this petition may be allowed.

¶44

4. Mr. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Mr. Chaliha, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 4; and Mr. Boro, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, submit that they have no objection in the event of granting similar relief to the present petitioners, as granted to the petitioners of WP(C) No. 6546/2010 and other connected writ petition.

¶45

5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the judgment and order dated 14.09.2023, passed in WP(C) No. 6546/2010 and other connected writ petition.

¶46

6. It is to be noted here that in the judgment and order, dated 14.09.2023, this Court had directed the respondent authorities to release the gratuity to the petitioners therein. In paragraph Nos. 21 to 25 of the said judgment and order, this Court has held as under:

¶47

“ 21. Gratuity is a retirement benefit for the long services rendered by an employee and as a provision for old age which is a statutory right under the Act. The said right cannot be taken away except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is considered as deferred payments earned by an employee during his lifetime of service and protected under the social welfare concept enshrined in the Constitution of India.

¶48

22. The subsequent question / issue which will arise is with

¶49

Page No.# 7/8

¶50

regard to lack of funds of the State Government to pay the Gratuity. The entitlement to gratuity being a statutory entitlement, the ground of lack of funds cannot be held to be a cogent ground and therefore it is the duty and reasonability of the State Government as a whole to allot adequate funds to clear the gratuity to the petitioners.

¶51

23. This Court has also taken note of the case laws relied upon by the petitioners wherein indications have been made that in matters of payment of gratuity, the State would have to take the responsibility.

¶52

24. In this connection, one may gainfully refer to the case of IUF Workers’ Assn. v. Union of India reported in (2018) 8 SCC 201 . In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a similar situation where in various the tea estates in the States of Assam, Kerala etc. were abandoned by the tea companies and the workers were left high and dry and were living in pitiable conditions as they did not receive their dues. Under such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the Central Government to carry out their statutory duties under the provisions of the Tea Act with some conditions.

¶53

25. In view of the above, both these writ petitions stand allowed holding that the petitioners are entitled to gratuity. Since, the pleaded case of the respondents is lack of funds, this Court directs the State Government to make adequate funds available to the Society to make the payment of gratuity to the petitioners. Since the claim is a long pending one, the said funds are to be made available within an outer limit of 90 days from today and the gratuity be paid to the petitioners as per their entitlements after due verification.”

¶54

7. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the present petitioners and late husband of the petitioner Nos. 5 and 7 were also employees of Jyoti Chitraban

¶55

Page No.# 8/8

¶56

(Film Studio) Society and they had retired from service, and they have not been granted the gratuity, which they are entitled to, after their superannuation.

¶57

8. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by granting similar relief to the present petitioners, as granted to the petitioners of WP(C) No. 6546/2010 and other connected writ petition.

¶58

9. It is provided that gratuity shall be paid to the present petitioners within a period 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after proper verification, and if there is any shortage of fund, the respondent No. 4/Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department shall make available necessary funds for payment of gratuity to the petitioners.

¶59

10. The petitioners shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of one week from today.

¶60

11. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶61

JUDGE

¶62

Comparing Assistant

Benu Ram Neog and 7 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benu Ram Neog and 7 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabin Dey Vs Lavita Das

Gunu Chetia Hati Boruah Vs the Govt. of Assam and 4 Ors.

Bhrigu Thakuria Vs the State of Assam and 24 Ors.

Assam State Primary Teachers Association and Ors. Vs Jonmoni Devi and Ors.

Reena Ayengia Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gakul Barman and 7 Ors. Vs the Bodoland Territorial Council and 2 Ors.