Bina Rani Debbarma vs State Of Tripura And 10 Ors

Arindam Lodh, J

Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. PK Dhar, learned senior GA assisted by Mr. A. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

By means of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“ Issue Rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why the Respondents should not transmit all records relating to the case of the petitioner;

AND

As to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the Respondents to make payment of remaining Gratuity amounting to Rs. 3,95,363/- alongwith statutory interest @9% w.e.f. 01.02.2018 in favour of the petitioner;

AND

As to why such other order/orders should not be passed so as to give full relief to the petitioner and upon causes shown to make the Rule absolute”;

Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was entitled to receive the gratuity amount for Rs. 11, 44,298/-after her retirement from service, but, she was paid only Rs. 7,48,945/-The remaining amount of Rs. 3,95,363/- was not paid to her.

The reason for withholding such amount of gratuity, is, according to the petitioner, the respondents did not deduct the loan amount borrowed by the petitioner, from her salary, which submission, has also been acceded by learned senior GA appearing for the respondent.

However, Mr. Dhar, learned senior GA has submitted that the petitioner had the obligation to ask the DDO of the respondents to deduct the loan amount from her salary.

I have considered the submission of learned counsels appearing for the parties.

It is submitted that the respondents only had deducted Rs. 76,868/-but, has not deducted Rs. 1,23,132/-. Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner has no objection if the said amount of Rs. 1,23,132/- is deducted from the remaining amount of gratuity of Rs. 3,95,363/-, but, according to Mr. Datta, learned counsel, the petitioner is not liable to pay interest accrued out of non-payment of Rs. 1,23,132/- which was supposed to be deducted by the DDO of the respondents.

After considering all aspects, I find both the respondents as well as the petitioner were negligent in payment of loan amount and deducting the loan amount from the salary of the petitioner.

In view of this, the respondents are directed to deduct the unpaid loan amount for the purpose of repayment of the loan from the remaining gratuity amount of the petitioner. It appears that the said amount of Rs. 1,23,132/- has also accrued interest. In view of this, since I have held that both the respondents as well as the petitioner were at fault, so, both the respondents and the petitioner are to bear the amount of interest accrued out of non-payment of the loan amount equally. It is made clear that after deducting the loan amount including interest as stated here-in-above from the gratuity amount of the petitioner, the remaining amount shall be disbursed in favour of the petitioner.

With the above directions, the instant writ petition stands allowed in part and thus, disposed of.