Allowed¶35

Assam Government Marketing Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Loni Bhagawati

Gauhati HC16 Jun 2026Review.Pet./138/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition allowed; recall of judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 in WP(C) 6258/2019; gratuity cap of Rs.7.00 lakhs; AGMCL Resolution No.10, 238th Board Meeting, 14.06.2019; enhancement to Rs.10.00 lakhs deferred; Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; DCRG limit Rs.10.00 lakhs per Office Memorandum dated 12.07.2017; writ petitioner retired Deputy General Manager; Narayan Ch. Kalita; WP(C) 6258/2019 restored to file; Gauhati High Court; Justice Michael Zothankhuma; Assam Government Marketing Corporation Ltd.; Loni Bhagawati.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 in WP(C) 6258/2019 recalled; WP(C) 6258/2019 restored to file; Registry directed to list the matter before the appropriate Bench. ¶35

Assam Government Marketing Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs Loni Bhagawati — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Review petition allowed; impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 in WP(C) 6258/2019 recalled; WP(C) 6258/2019 restored to file; Registry directed to list the matter before the appropriate Bench.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 passed in WP(C) 6258/2019 should be reviewed and recalled on the ground that AGMCL Board Resolution No.10 (14.06.2019) capped gratuity at Rs.7.00 lakhs and this special reason was not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of disposal. +2 more

¶21

Court's answer

On considering that the Board of Directors of AGMCL had passed a resolution in 2019 that gratuity payable to retired employees would be capped at Rs.7.00 lakhs (even though calculation of the gratuity amount is to be done as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972), a case for review of the impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 in WP(C) 6258/2019 has been made out.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 passed in WP(C) 6258/2019 is recalled.

¶34

Key takeaways

A reading of Resolution No.10 of the 238th Meeting of the Board of Directors, AGMCL shows that the maximum limit of gratuity payable to employees of the Corporation is only Rs.7.00 lakhs; further, the writ petitioner herself, while working as Deputy General Manager, had recommended payment of gratuity up to Rs.7.00 lakhs only in respect of Sri Narayan Ch. Kalita, retired Assistant Manager of the Corporation.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (M. Zothankhuma, J) allowed Review.Pet./138/2022 filed by Assam Government Marketing Corporation Ltd. (AGMCL) and its Managing Director, and recalled the Court's own judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 in WP(C) 6258/2019, whereby the writ petitioner (Loni Bhagawati, who retired as Deputy General Manager) had been directed to be paid Gratuity of Rs.11,69,825/- without benefit of Resolution No.10 of the 238th Meeting of AGMCL's Board of Directors held on 14.06.2019. That Resolution recorded that, due to bad financial position, gratuity for Corporation employees would remain capped at Rs.7.00 lakhs, with enhancement to Rs.10.00 lakhs to be recommended only if the financial condition improved. The Court noted that the writ petitioner, while serving as Deputy General Manager, had herself recommended gratuity up to Rs.7.00 lakhs only for Sri Narayan Ch. Kalita, a retired Assistant Manager. Holding that a case for review was made out - the cap operating even though the gratuity amount is to be calculated as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - the Court recalled the impugned judgment and order, allowed the review petition, restored WP(C) 6258/2019 to file, and directed the Registry to list the matter before the appropriate Bench.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010175642022

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : Review.Pet./138/2022

¶6

ASSAM GOVERNMENT MARKETING CORPORATION LTD AND ANR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PRAGJYOTIKA BHAWAN, G.N.B ROAD, AMBARI, GUWAHATI 01, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶7

2: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. PRAGJYOTIKA BHAWAN G.N.B ROAD AMBARI GUWAHATI 01 DIST KAMRUP M ASSA

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

LONI BHAGAWATI

¶10

W/O SRI DIPAK BHAGAWATI, RESIDENT OF 18, JANAPATH HATIGAON, PS HATIGOAN, GUWAHATI 781038, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAMARIA, MR. D DAS,MR A N SARMAH,MR. M ALI

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P J SAIKIA, SR. ADV, MR. A K GUPTA

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

ORDER

17.06.2026

(M. Zothankhuma, J)

Heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr.

¶18

Page No.# 2/5

¶19

A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the sole respondent/writ petitioner.

¶20

The review petitioner has prayed for review of the judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 passed in WP(C) 6258/2019, on the ground that the Assam Government Marketing Corporation Limited (AGMCL) had, vide it’s Resolution No.10 of the 238^th Meeting of the Board of Directors, AGMCL held on 14.06.2019, agreed to raise the Gratuity payable to it’s employees from Rs.7.00 lakhs to Rs.10.00 lakhs, if the financial condition of the AGMCL improved in the coming years. The above, according to the AGMCL’s counsel implies that Gratuity amount payable to the employees of the AGMCL, which is a Corporation, is to be limited only to Rs.7.00 lakhs. On the other hand, this Court while disposing of WP(C) 6258/2019 had directed that the writ petitioner should be given the Gratuity amount of Rs.11,69,825/-, without having benefit of Resolution No.10 of the 238^th Meeting of the Board of Directors, AGMCL, held on 14.06.2019.

¶21

The counsel for the review petitioner submits that the writ petitioner retired as a Deputy General Manager and was well aware that there was a cap for payment of Gratuity @ Rs. 7.00 lakhs and in fact, the writ petitioner had also recommended payment of Gratuity to other employees during his tenure, to the limit of Rs. 7.00 lakhs only. However, the said fact had not been brought to the notice of this Court at the time of disposal of WP(C) 6258/2019. The learned counsel thus submits that in view of the above special reason, the impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 should be reviewed and the said impugned judgment and order should be recalled. The learned counsel also

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

submits that there should be a limit to the payment of Gratuity payable to the writ petitioner, in terms of Resolution No.10 of the 238^th Meeting of the Board of Directors of the AGMCL held on 14.06.2019. Mr. R. Dhar submits that the Rs. 7.00 lakhs Gratuity has also been paid to the writ petitioner.

¶24

On the other hand, the counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to the Gratuity amount of Rs.11,69,825/- and as such, the impugned judgment and order should not be interfered with. The learned counsel also submits that when the Government servants in the Assam Government are entitled to the enhanced maximum limit of Rs. 10.00 lakhs for DCRG in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 12.07.2017, as provided in paragraph-8 of the writ petition, there is no justification for putting a cap on the Gratuity payable to the writ petitioner @ Rs. 7.00 lakhs.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶26

The extract of the Resolution No.10 in the 238^th Meeting of the Board of Directors, AGMCL held on 14.06.2019 states as follows :

¶27

“EXRACT OF THE RESOLUTION NO.10 OF THE 238^TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AGMC LTD, HELD ON 14 JUNE, 2019.

¶28

ITEM NO. 10:ENHANCEMENT OF GRATUITY AS PER GRATUITY ACT FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE CORPORATION

¶29

The Managing Director informed the Board about the demand of its Corporation employees for raising the Gratuity from Rs.7.00 lakhs to

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

Rs.10.00 lakhs. The MD explained that due to bad financial position over the last few years, the Corporation was not in a position to enhance the gratuity for now. The Board members also agreed with the MD and further stated that, if the financial condition is improved in the coming years, the Board will recommend the matter for enhancement.

¶32

However, the Board authorized MD to go through the rules of Gratuity Act.”

¶33

A reading of the above clearly shows that the maximum limit of Gratuity payable to the employees of the Corporation is only Rs. 7.00 lakhs. Further, as per the records that have been brought to the notice of the Court, the writ petitioner while working as Deputy General Manager had also recommended payment of Gratuity up to Rs. 7.00 lakhs only, in respect of Sri Narayan Ch. Kalita, retired Assistant Manager of the Corporation.

¶34

On considering the fact that the Board of Directors of the Corporation had already passed a resolution in the year 2019 that there would be a cap on the Gratuity payable to the retired employees @ Rs.7.00 lakhs, though the calculation of the Gratuity amount is to be done as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, this Court is of the view that a case for review of the impugned judgment and order has been made out. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 passed in WP(C) 6258/2019 is hereby recalled.

¶35

The review petition is allowed.

¶36

WP(C) 6258/2019 is restored to file.

¶37

Page No.# 5/5

¶38

Registry is directed to list the matter before the appropriate Bench.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Assam Government Marketing Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Loni Bhagawati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Assam Government Marketing Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Loni Bhagawati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sh. K. Lalawmpuia Vs The State of Mizoram and Anr.

Sh. Lalsangzela Vs The State of Mizoram and Anr.

In Re- Construction of Working Women Hostel at Vengthlang, Champhai Vs The State of Mizoram r/b the Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.

Sh. Vanlalramropuia Vs The State of Mizoram

National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (Nhidcl) and Anr. Vs Sh. T.K. Thanga and Anr.

National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (Nhidcl) and Anr. Vs Tk Thanga and Anr.