Allowed

Hena Rani Das v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC8 Aug 2017WP(C)/588/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Tripura ordered the respondent Corporation to pay the petitioner, a retired peon-cum-chowkidar, full gratuity and leave encashment benefits with interest within three months, applying the principle that statutory dues cannot be denied due to financial constraints.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent Corporation to pay full gratuity and leave encashment benefits with interest within three months from the date of the order.

Hena Rani Das Vs the State of Tripura and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 588 of 2017

¶4

Mrs. Hena Rani Das ,

¶5

wife of late Krishnadhan Das, resident of Kunjaban Colony, P.O. Abhoynagar, P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

Versus –

¶8

The State of Tripura , represented by the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, Agartala,West Tripura

¶9

The Director ,

¶10

Department of Agriculture, Government of Tripura

¶11

The Managing Director , Tripura Horticulture Corporation Limited, (A Government Undertaking), R.C.D.F. Complex, P.O. Arundhutinagar, West Tripura

¶12

The Secretary , Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, Agartala, West Tripura

¶13

… Respondents

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶16

For the petitioner : Mr. P. Maishan, Advocate For respondents no. 1,2,4 : Ms. AS Lodh, Addl. GA For respondents no. 3 : Mr. NC Pal, Advocate Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment and Order : 08.08.2017 Whether fit for reporting : NO

¶17

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶18

Heard Mr. P. Maishan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. AS Lodh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 and Mr. NC Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, Tripura Horticulture Corporation Limited.

¶19

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court for directing the respondents to make full and final

¶20

W.P.(C) No. 588 of 2017

¶21

¶22

payment of the gratuity and leave salary with interest @12% from 01.11.2014. There is no dispute that the petitioner was working as the Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the Tripura Horticulture Corporation Limited. The petitioner was appointed in the said capacity on 28.07.1993. After serving the respondents without any blemish on her completion of 60 years of age, she retired from the service on 30.09.2014 from the said Corporation. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to the full and final payment of the gratuity in terms of Section 7 of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1973, but that was not so paid. As a result, the petitioner has approached this court for having the relief, as aforesaid. The petitioner has asserted that her case is covered by a decision of this court in Gauranga Adhikari vs. State of Tripura [ judgment and order dated 05.07.2016 delivered in WP(C) 373 of 2015 ]. In Gauranga Adhikari (supra) this court has observed as under:

¶23

“Now, when both the payment of gratuity as well as leave encashment are the statutory dues admissible to the petitioner, the same cannot be denied on the ground of lack of finance. Section 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 stipulates that the employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom gratuity is payable. Sub-Section (3A) of Section 7 further provides that if the amount of gratuity so payable is not paid on the date it becomes due, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long term deposits shall have to be paid. Similarly, the payment of leave encashment is also guaranteed by Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. As the payment of both the gratuity and leave encashment are statutorily guaranteed, the respondent-Corporation cannot take shield of financial crunch to deny the payment; this called for the interference of this Court.

¶24

For what has been stated in the foregoing, this writ petition succeeds. The respondent corporation is, therefore, directed to release the amount of gratuity and leave encashment benefits due to the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 01.01.2012. The payment shall be made by the respondent-Corporation to the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of this order”.

¶25

3. Despite the order dated 24.07.2014, the respondents

¶26

preferred not to file any reply. Today Mr. Pal, learned counsel

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 588 of 2017

¶28

¶29

appearing for the respondent no 3 has submitted that the Board of Directors of the Corporation has already decided and recommended the payment of gratuity and the leave encashment in favour of the petitioner. Since the Corporation is regulated by Rule 9(xiii) and 15 of the Delegation of the Financial Powers Tripura Rules, 2011 providing that prior concurrence of the Finance Department has to be taken before sanction of allowance, special pay, honorarium, over-time allowances etc. unless covered under any special order issued by the Finance Department. Even the provisions of Clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (viii), (x), (xiii), (xxiv) and (xviii) are applicable to the Corporation.

¶30

4. Ms. Lodh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents no.1,2 and 4 has submitted that this case is squarely covered by the said decision and in view of that, the respondents have not filed any reply.

¶31

5. Having situated thus, this court is of the view that the respondents shall be directed to pay the full payment of the gratuity and the leave encashment to the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from today with interest @7% from the date when 30 days from the date of superannuation has expired. It is made clear that at the time of payment of gratuity if any sum has already been paid that amount shall be deducted from the entire gratuity entitled to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 588 of 2017

¶33

¶34

6. The writ petition, therefore, stands allowed and disposed

¶35

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

Copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel

¶37

appearing for the parties.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Saikat

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 588 of 2017

Hena Rani Das v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hena Rani Das 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarun Choudhury Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Safiqur Rahaman Vs Md. Najir Ali and Ors.

Safiqur Rahaman Vs Najir Ali and Anr.

Priyatosh Das Chowdhury Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Bidhan Ch Das Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Rajib Sinha Vs Chamaki Sinha