Bikash Paul vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 & 3. Despite due notice, the respondent No.4 is not represented when the matter is taken up for hearing.

Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the North Tripura Fish Farmers Development Agency is a society receiving grant-in-aid for extending the beneficial service to the Fish Farmers. The petitioner was serving as the Upper Division Clerk (UDC) against the sanctioned post of the accountant with effect from 02.05.1996 on due approval. After his superannuation on 31.01.2018 the petitioner is entitled to receive the superannuation benefits like leave salary etc. Leave salary has been paid to the petitioner but no gratuity has been paid as yet in terms of Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to the gratuity to the extent of Rs.6,32,812/- with interest payable under Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Mr. Datta, learned counsel has relied on the judgment dated 06.08.2018 delivered in a series of writ petitions including WP(C)No.1205 of 2017 titled as Sunil Das versus State of Tripura & Others. In the said judgment under the similar circumstances, this court has directed the respondents to pay the retirement gratuity after observing that the question regarding entitlement for payment of gratuity and leave encashment to the employees of the West Tripura FFDA is no more res integra. This court has held further that each of the petitioners is entitled to gratuity and leave encashment, if not paid so far in terms of Sec.4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. As the causes of delay are not attributable to the petitioners, that makes them entitled for interest @ 9% per annum for the delay in payment of gratuity in terms of Sec.7(3A) of the Act, 1972.

Mr. Datta, learned counsel has drawn our attention to the communication of the Chief Executive Officer of North Tripura Fish Farmers Development Agency, Kumarghat dated 19.12.2019 [Annexure-R/3 to the reply filed by the respondents] whereby he had requested the other respondents, particularly, the Director of Fisheries to provide them fund of Rs.6,32,812/- for payment of gratuity together with compound interest to the petitioner at the earliest convenience.

Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 has submitted that the state government only provides the grant [fund] for managing those societies and those societies cannot as a matter of right claim any money from the state government and as such, no direction may be issued on the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 for releasing any fund. The contention of Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 cannot to any extent be accepted by this court as the state has admitted that the Fish Farmers Development Agencies in the districts are funded by the state as those agencies do extend the beneficial service to the Fish Farmers.

Appointment of any employee or release of any benefit to the employees is wholly regulated by the state government. Without their prior sanction, no person can be appointed as the employee of the said societies and as such, it can safely be presumed that while the petitioner was appointed as UDC, that appointment was sanctioned by the competent authority in the state. Now, when an employee has retired on superannuation, his benefits as protected by Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 cannot be denied on the premises that the state does not have any obligation to provide the required fund to the said Fish Farmers Development Agency. As the entire financial control is exercised by the Department of Fisheries and the persons are appointed in the Fish Farmers Development Agency with prior sanction of the state government, the state cannot be permitted to hold that they will not discharge their obligation as regards benefits flowing from the statute. As such, the petitioner is entitled to get the gratuity on his superannuation. The gratuity shall be calculated and be paid to the petitioner. The principal amount i.e. Rs.6,32,812/- be paid with compound interest @ 9% per annum of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

The respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to make arrangement of the fund to the extent of Rs.6,32,812/- with compound interest @ 9% per annum and transfer the same to the respondent No.5 to make payment of the retirement gratuity to the petitioner at Rs.6,32,812/- with interest @ 9% in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 till the date of payment. Such fund shall be placed to the respondent No.5 within a period of three months from the date of placing a copy of this order to the respondents No.1, 2 and 3.

In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.