Disposed

Trtc Motor Workers Union v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC4 May 2017WP(C)/559/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Tripura disposed of two writ petitions seeking pension and leave encashment benefits for TRTC employees. The court followed a prior judgment directing that an exercise to determine feasibility would be completed within eight months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to set up a committee to examine feasibility of pension and leave encashment benefits within eight months.

Trtc Motor Workers Union Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

¶2

A G A R T A L A

¶3

W.P.(C) No.559 of 2015 &

¶4

W.P.(C) No.668 of 2015

¶5

In W.P.(C) No.559 of 2015

¶6

Petitioner:

¶7

Tripura Road Transport Corporation Motor Workers Union , Reg. No.124, Office at Hospital Road, Krishnanagar (TRTC Complex), Agartala, West Tripura, represented by Sri Samar Chandra Roy (President), son of late Banamali Roy, of Old Kalibari Lane, Krishnanagar, Agartala, West Tripura

¶8

By Advocate :

¶9

Mr. R. Dutta, Advocate Ms. R. Purakayasta, Advocate

¶10

– V e r s u s –

¶11

Respondents :

¶12

The State of Tripura, represented by the Commissioner cum Secretary, to the Government of Tripura, Department of Transport, New Capital Complex, P.O. Secretariat Complex, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala, District – West Tripura

¶13

The Commissioner cum Secretary, Government of Tripura, Department of Finance, New Capital Complex, P.O. Secretariat Complex, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala, District – West Tripura

¶14

Tripura Road Transport Corporation,

¶15

a Government of Tripura undertaking, represented by its Chairman, Krishnanagar, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District – West Tripura

¶16

By Advocate :

¶17

Mr. S. Chakraborty, Addl. G.A. Mr. P. Dutta, Advocate

¶18

[2]

¶19

In W.P.(C) No.668 of 2015

¶20

Petitioner:

¶21

Sri Dipak Kumar Das,

¶22

son of late Jogesh Chandra Das of Ramnagar Road No.8, P.O. Ramnagar, Agartala, West Tripura

¶23

By Advocate :

¶24

Mr. R. Dutta, Advocate Ms. R. Purakayasta, Advocate

¶25

– V e r s u s –

¶26

Respondents :

¶27

The State of Tripura,

¶28

represented by the Commissioner cum Secretary, to the Government of Tripura, Department of Transport, New Capital Complex, P.O. Secretariat Complex, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala, District – West Tripura

¶29

The Commissioner cum Secretary, Government of Tripura, Department of Finance, New Capital Complex, P.O. Secretariat Complex, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala, District – West Tripura

¶30

Tripura Road Transport Corporation, a Government of Tripura undertaking, represented by its Chairman, Krishnanagar, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District – West Tripura

¶31

By Advocate :

¶32

Mr. S. Chakraborty, Addl. G.A. Mr. P. Dutta, Advocate

¶33

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Date of hearing and delivery of : 04.05.2017 Judgment & Order Yes No Whether fit for reporting : √

¶34

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶35

W.P.(C) No.559 of 2015 W.P.(C) No.668 of 2015

Page 2 of 7

[3]

JUDGMENT & ORDER

Heard Ms. R. Purakayasta, learned counsel appearing

¶40

for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.

¶41

[2] These writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.559 of 2015 [Tripura Road Transport Corporation Motor Workers Union vs. the State of Tripura & others] and W.P.(C) No.668 of 2015 [Sri Dipak Kumar Das vs. the State of Tripura & others] are clustered for disposal by a common judgment as the writ petitioners in those writ petitions have made a uniform prayer which are unquestionably within the domain of policy making by the State. The principal relief in both the writ petitions is exactly identical and that reads as under:

¶42

“After hearing the parties would be further pleased enough to issue a Writ of Mandamus for directing the Respondents to provide pension as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 modified by the Government of Tripura by Memo No.F.S.(11)-Fin(G)/99 dated 25.03.1999 and to extend the benefit of leave encashment to the petitioner as per Tripura State Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1986 modified by Memo No.F.1(1)-Fin(G)/96 dated January, 30, 1990 w.e.f. 16.11.1995, to which the petitioner is entitled, and also to introduce the Employees State Insurance Scheme, 1967 to the petitioner, for fair ends of justice, otherwise the petitioner will be seriously prejudiced and cause irreparable loss and injuries.”

¶43

[3] It has been urged by the petitioners that the State Government has introduced the pension scheme under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as adopted by the Government of Tripura by the memorandum under No.F.8(11)-FIN(G)/99 dated

¶44

W.P.(C) No.668 of 2015

¶45

W.P.(C) No.559 of 2015

¶46

Page 3 of 7

¶47

[4]

¶48

25.03.1999, even the State Government has extended the benefit of leave encashment as entitled to the State Government employees to the employees of several boards and local bodies. The petitioners have on such foundation, stated that the Tripura Road Transport Corporation being an enterprise of the State Government cannot be kept aside from so far extending such benefit to its employees. In Para-7 of the writ petition, the petitioners have averred as under:

¶49

“7. That the respondent No.2 in its 104^th Board meeting held on 08.03.1999 had adopted a decision to the effect that the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 shall be applicable to the employees of TRTC. Further, the Board of TRTC in its 106^th meeting held on 13.08.1999 adopted resolution for introducing the Tripura State Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1986 for introduction of leave encashment scheme for employees of TRTC and CCS Pension Rules, 1972 subject to the approval of the State Government and it has been further observed that the final decision on the aforesaid issues would be taken by the Board in due course on receipt of Govt. sanction in this regard. This inter alia reflects that the employees of TRTC are appointed and their entire service conditions and other affairs are controlled and regulated by the State Government. But most unfortunately, till date the Government has not communicated its decision to this effect for which the employees of TRTC are most illegally deprived of their pensionary benefits.

¶50

Further the Notice vide No.F.15(3)-TRTC/1/1375(A) dated 12th May, 1972 specifically and clearly states that as per decision taken by the Corporation all Government Rules will apply to TRTC until framing of rules by the Corporation and any violation of Government rules will be deemed as indiscipline and will be seriously dealt with. For the purpose of pension, no separate set of rules have been formulated or adopted by the TRTC and as such by virtue of this notice CCS Pension Rules will be automatically applicable to the employees of TRTC. Copies of the resolution dated 08.03.1999 and Notice vide No.F.15(3)-TRTC/1/1375(A) dated 12th May, 1972 are enclosed herewith and marked as AnnexureH/1 and H/2.

¶51

It is pertinent to mention here that where as the employees of Tripura Tea Dev. Corporation, Agartala Municipal Corporation, Tripura Handloom Handicrafts Development Corporation, Tripura Small Scale Industry Corporation etc. which are also undertakings of the Govt. of Tripura are given the benefit of encashment of Earned Leave Salary in credit, yet the same is most illegally denied to the petitioner which amounted to gross violation of Article 14 of the

¶52

W.P.(C) No.559 of 2015

¶53

W.P.(C) No.668 of 2015

¶54

Page 4 of 7

¶55

[5]

¶56

Constitution of India, the same being arbitrary, illegally and discriminatory.

¶57

Copies regarding giving of leave encashment benefit are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-1.”

¶58

[4] The petitioners had filed the representation demanding the same benefits but without any avail. The petitioners have referred the letter under No.F.10(7)-FIN(G)/2012 dated 12.01.2015 whereby the Additional Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Finance Department had sought opinion from the Managing Director, Tripura Road Transport Corporation, on the following demands:

¶59

“(i) To provide pension and DR benefits at revised rates to the EPF pensioners of State Govt. undertakings at par with State Govt. pensioner w.e.f. 16.11.1995.

¶60

(ii) To implement leave encashment in respect of employees TRTC retired w.e.f. 16.11.1995.

¶61

(iii) To implement family pension, widow pension, deserted women pension and unmarried children pension for dependants of EPF pensioners at par with State Govt. pensioners.”

¶62

[5] The Managing Director, Tripura Road Transport Corporation Limited by his letter under No.F.1(11)TRTC/EDF(FINAL)/2012/VOL-III/2745 dated 03.02.2015 had after taking stock of the financial implication and all other aspects recommended for implementation of pension/family pension and leave encashment benefits to the employees of Tripura Road Transport Corporation Ltd. at par with State Govt. employees w.e.f. 16.11.1995, but no action has surfaced so far from the state-respondents.

¶63

W.P.(C) No.559 of 2015

¶64

W.P.(C) No.668 of 2015

¶65

Page 5 of 7

¶66

[6]

¶67

Being aggrieved, these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners.

¶68

[6] Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 3 has submitted that these writ petitions is devoid of merit inasmuch as the petitioners cannot as a matter of right cannot claim that such benefit shall be extended to the employees of Tripura Road Transport Corporation Ltd. Moreover, this case is covered by a decision of this court in Hiranmoy Bagchi and others vs. the State of Tripura and others [judgment and order dated 20.04.2017 delivered in W.P.(C) No.131 of 2017]. In that judgment, the following direction was made:

¶69

“ Having considered the submissions as made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the respondents No.1 and 2 shall set up a committee for this purpose and having recommendation from that committee and on due consultation with the Board of Management of the TRTC, they may decide whether such benefit can be extended to the employees of the TRTC. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 8(eight) months from the date when the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this order to the respondents No.1,2 & 3.”

¶70

[7] After appreciating the submissions as made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court is of the view that by the similar direction these writ petitions can be disposed of. Accordingly, the respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to set up a committee for examining the feasibility of introduction of pension and the benefit of leave encashment for the employees of Tripura Road Transport Corporation and having recommendation from the said committee and on due consultation with the Board of Management of the Tripura Road Transport Corporation Ltd.

¶71

W.P.(C) No.559 of 2015

¶72

W.P.(C) No.668 of 2015

¶73

Page 6 of 7

¶74

[7]

¶75

those respondents may decide whether such benefit can be extended to the employees of the Tripura Road Transport Corporation Ltd. or not. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 8(eight) months from the day when the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this order to the respondents No.1,2 & 3.

¶76

[9] In terms of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of.

¶77

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶78

JUDGE

¶79

Sujay

¶80

W.P.(C) No.559 of 2015

¶81

W.P.(C) No.668 of 2015

¶82

Page 7 of 7

Trtc Motor Workers Union v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trtc Motor Workers Union v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Tripura and Ors. Vs Ashok Datta and Ors.

Deputy Chief Engineer Const. N.F. Railway Vs Gouranga Ch. Sur

Haradhan Debnath Vs Raimohan Debnath and Ors.

Ashu Malakar and Ors. Vs Somnath Bhattacharjee and Ors.

Subal Das Vs the State of Tripura

Prasun Kanti Chakraborty Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.