Sri Arun Kumar Singha & Ors. v. Sri Mihir Singha Roy & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 27 Jan 2021
- Bench
- INDRAJIT MAHANTY
Outcome
Allowed
In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed
Provisions considered
- Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 s. 4(3)
Judgment
Sri Arun Kumar Singha and Ors The State of Tripura and Ors. ………. Petitioner(s). Vs. ………. Respondent(s). Sri Mihir Singha Roy and Ors WP(C) No.94/2021 The State of Tripura and Ors. ………. Petitioner(s). Vs. ………. Respondent(s). Sri Dibyajit Paul. WP(C) No.474/2021 The State of Tripura and Ors. ………. Petitioner(s). Vs. ………. Respondent(s). Page - 2 of 4 For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. S Deb(Gupta), Advocate, Mrs. S Nandy, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. D Bhattachariya, Govt. Advocate, Mr. Biswanath Majumder, CGC, Mrs. P Dhar, Advocate, Mr. Partha Saha, Advocate, Mr. Anujit Dey, Advocate. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY _O_R_D_E_ R_ 17/02/2022 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case is covered by a judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.204/2020 dated 27th January 2021 where this Court came to the following conclusions : “10.
A former notification for amendment by the state government would dispel the confusion that is reigning for the time being. In defining „employee‟, it has been provided the central government and the state government employees have been excluded from the definition of employee for purpose of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 if their payment of gratuity is regulated by the separate Act or the Rules. Those employees who are working under the central government or the state government would stand excluded from the definition of employee [see Section-2(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972], in the event if their payment of gratuity is governed by any other Act or by any Rules providing for payment of gratuity. In the present case, the state government employees are governed by Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017. As such, the petitioner may not be treated as Page - 3 of 4 „employee‟ for general purpose of applying the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The state government shall revisit Rule-9 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017 as it appears emergent in view of the judgment of this court in Bhupati Debnath(supra) having regard particularly to para-11 of the said judgment and take the proper decision as regard enhancing maximum limit, as has been done by the central government vide their notification dated 29.03.2018. It is expected that the parity in payment of gratuity be maintained as has been earlier maintained by the state government in terms of the provisions of Section 4 (3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. However, until such exercise is done, and which shall be done within a period of three months from the date when a copy of this order is made available to the respondents by the petitioner, gratuity of the petitioner be paid for the time being on the basis of the maximum limit of Rs.10,00,000/- within a period of six weeks with interest @ 7% from the day when that fell due.
Operative part
It fell due on the day after expiry of 30 days from the date of retirement. There is no dispute about the limit in view of Rule-9 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017 which according to the respondents, governs the determination of the gratuity of the petitioner. The remainder of the gratuity be paid from the same date when the gratuity fell due i.e. after one month from the date of superannuation or from any other date as might be notified, with same rate of interest. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed.” Mr. D Bhattacharya, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, fairly admits that this matter is covered by the judgment relied on Page - 4 of 4 by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms with the directions issued in the connected matter as noted herein above. Further clarifying that the petitioners are held entitled to get benefits on such terms as stands determined by this Court in the said decision. All necessary consequential actions shall follow. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( INDRAJIT MAHANTY, CJ ) Sukhendu
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — s. 4(3).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Tripura High Court, on 27 Jan 2021. The bench was INDRAJIT MAHANTY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.