Dalia Chakraborty And Ors vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] The petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased Soumendra Chakraborty. They have prayed for a direction to the respondents for payment of full gratuity with interest as per enhanced rates as per the amendments in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the said Act, for short) in the year 2010.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

The husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioner No.2 Soumendra Chakraborty was an employee of the respondent No.2, Tripura Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the said Bank'). He retired on superannuation with effect from 31.05.2010. As per the provisions of the said Act and his service, the calculation of gratuity worked out to Rs.6,23,310/-. The employer bank, however, soon after the retirement paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards gratuity under the premise that as per the said Act, the maximum gratuity payable was Rs.3,50,000/-.

[3] Soumendra Chakraborty expired on 09.12.2014 leaving behind his widow and son as his legal heirs. They have filed this petition seeking remaining amount of gratuity of Rs.2,73,310/- on the ground that the said Act was amended by Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2010 which enhanced the limit of gratuity payable to an employee to Rs.10,00,000/-. The petitioner would point out that on their behalf the Advocate had issued a notice to the bank on 19.10.2015 in which along with the several retired employees of the said bank the present petitioners had also sought payment of gratuity as per the revised limit. Despite this notice, the petitioners were not paid the differential amount of gratuity. Hence this petition.

[4] The Government of Tripura has filed a reply dated 26.05.2016 in which it is stated that upon retirement Soumendra Chakraborty was paid gratuity of Rs.3,50,000/- on 01.06.2010 which was as per the said Act. At the time of his retirement, maximum gratuity payable as per the bank resolution was Rs.3,50,000/-. It is further stated that the bank management in their meeting dated 30.11.2015 passed a resolution to extend the benefit of higher ceiling of gratuity in tune with the decision of the High Court of Tripura in case of Hari Bhusan Sutradhar versus State of Tripura [WP(C) No.230 of 2012]. A copy of the resolution is produced at Annexure-R/1 with the reply. This document contains the name of Sounak Chakraborty as a legal representative of deceased Soumendra Chakraborty and it records that upon his retirement he was paid Rs.3,50,000/- against the calculation of admissible gratuity of Rs.6,23,310/- and the balance payable was Rs.2,73,310/-.

[5] It is unfortunate that despite since long issue being well settled the respondent No.2 has so far not released the differential gratuity payable to the family of the deceased long after he retired and several years after he passed away. It is undisputed that the maximum limit of gratuity payable under the said Act was revised to Rs.10,00,000/- by virtue of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2010 which came into effect from 24.05.2010. Since Soumendra Chakraborty had retired after the said date, he was entitled to receive gratuity as per such revised ceiling. Several judgments of this Court have taken such a view. In fact in case of Hari Bhusan Sutradhar and another versus Tripura Cooperative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd and others in WP(C) No.230 of 2012 dated 22.09.2015 the Division Bench of this Court in case of this very bank had held that such revised limit would apply to the employees who retired after the amendment in the law. In the said case, the two employees had retired on 30.04.2011 & 31.07.2011 respectively. They were, however, paid gratuity by applying the maximum limit of Rs.3,50,000/-. They, therefore, filed the said petition claiming gratuity as per the revised limit of Rs.10,00,000/- as per the amendment in the said Act. The Division Bench disposed of the petition with the following directions :

"5. The case is squarely covered by the judgment cited above. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and it is held that both the petitioners are entitled to be paid gratuity by taking the upper limit of gratuity payable at Rs.10,00,000/-(rupees ten lakhs). In terms of the interim order passed by this Court some amount of gratuity has already been paid to the petitioners. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay the balance amount of gratuity payable to the petitioners along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of their retirement till payment of the amount. In case, the amount is not paid by 31st December, 2015 then the rate of interest shall be @ 12% per annum."

[6] Another group of petitions being WP(C) No.581 of 2015 and connected petitions in case of Smt. Minati Deb (Das) versus the State of Tripura and others, dated 06.04.2016 involving the employees of this very bank came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by a common judgment dated 06.04.2016 with a direction to release the gratuity with interest.

[7] Similar issues have been examined by this Court in case of Bhupati Debnath versus The State of Tripura and others in WP(C) No.1054 of 2019 dated 13.02.2020 and in case of Mamata Singha Roy versus The State of Tripura and another in WP(C) No.1057 of 2019 dated 13.02.2020. These decisions pertain to employees of establishments other than the present bank, nevertheless, issues were identical.

[8] Thus, when the issues were squarely covered by a series of judgments of this Court, it is difficult to understand why the bank did not release the unpaid gratuity in favour of the petitioners. The bank, as pointed out in the reply filed by the Government, had also passed the resolution to apply the revised ceiling as per the decision of this Court in case of Hari Bhusan Sutradhar (supra) to all similarly situated employees including the petitioners as the representatives of the deceased employee. This resolution was dated 30.11.2015. The bank instead of acting on its own resolution compelled the petitioners to move a writ petition before this Court and even after the writ petition was filed, did not release the unpaid amount of gratuity. In the meantime, the bank retained the money which belonged to the petitioners. Therefore, though there is some delay in approaching the court, the respondent No.2 must pay reasonable interest for the entire period.

[9] In the result, petition is disposed of with the following directions :

(i) The respondent No.2 shall release the remaining amount of Rs.2,73,310/- towards unpaid gratuity by applying the revised limit of Rs.10,00,000/-.

(ii) The amount shall carry simple interest @ 7.5% from the expiry of one month after the date of retirement of Soumendra Chakraborty till actual payment.

(iii) These directions shall be carried out within a period of three months from today.

[10] With these directions, the petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.