Dilip Das vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1} Petitioner's grievance is about certain deductions made from his gratuity.

[2] Brief facts are as under:

The petitioner after 37 years of service wanted to proceed on voluntary retirement. Since the department was not accepting the notice the petitioner filed WP(C) No.1440/2019 which was disposed of by an order of 20th December, 2019. In such order it was provided that the petitioner would be deemed to have retired from the time when he stopped rendering service and receiving salary. It was provided that the pension and post retiral benefits shall be released on such basis. Pursuant to such directions, the petitioner became entitled to receive pension and gratuity. The department passed an order dated 5th June, 2020 (which is challenged in this petition) in which while fixing his gratuity at Rs.8,06,850/- an order was passed to pay provisional sum of Rs.6,05,138/- being 75% of the full gratuity calculated. From the said sum the department recovered a sum of Rs.3,04,409/- towards outstanding dues of OBC Development Corporation Ltd. and a further sum of Rs.1,90,823/- which would be transferred to Tripura Gramin Bank towards the petitioner's loan account. Rest of the amount of Rs.1,09,906/- would be paid to the petitioner.

[3] Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no recoveries from the gratuity could have been made as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Further for the loan of OBC Development Corporation, petitioner was not a principal borrower but merely a guarantor. The principal borrower has showed willingness to pay up the outstanding dues failing which the petitioner would pay. In any case, the amount cannot be recovered at this stage.

[4] With respect to the loan of the Tripura Gramin Bank she submitted that the petitioner is a principal borrower but the amount recovered is far in excess of his dues. In any case, neither the Bank nor the Government has provided the breakup of the said sum.

[5] Counsel drew my attention to the orders dated 12th June, 2020 and 13th July, 2020 by which the Court had stayed the execution and implementation of the impugned order despite which the recoveries were made. She submitted that the recoveries if at all could have been made from the pensionary benefits and the leave encashment entitlement of the petitioner but not from the gratuity.

[6] Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. M Debbarma submitted that the amount of Rs.3,04,409/- which was adjusted previously despite the stay order of the Court has been reversed and is now lying with the Government Treasury. He further submitted that the Government had received a communication from the Tripura Gramin Bank raising the demand of unpaid loan pursuant to which the said recovery has been affected. He submitted that the leave encashment has already been paid. The pension is being calculated would be paid in due course.

[7] The petitioner may be correct in contending that no adjustment of the dues could be made from the gratuity payable. However, in facts of the present case, the same would only amount to adjustment of accounts entries. Even the counsel for the petitioner agreed that such recoveries, if due, could be made from leave encashment and pensionary benefits. Only on this ground, therefore, in facts of the present case, I am not inclined to set aside the entire impugned order. However, certain directions are required to be issued.

[8] The said sum of Rs.3,04,409/- is not the principal dues of the petitioner since he was a guarantor in a loan obtained by a principal borrower. If the principal borrower is willing to repay the amount as suggested by the counsel for the petitioner, there is no reason why the petitioner should be asked to pay the said sum from his gratuity.

[9] With respect to the sum of Rs.1,90,823/- already recovered and paid over to the Gramin Bank by the respondents, admittedly, the same pertains to the petitioner's loan account. Petitioner is the principal borrower. He received the loan as an employee of the Government. He would have given an undertaking to the Bank that unpaid dues may be recovered from his salary and other entitlements from the employer. If not from the gratuity account this amount could have been adjusted from his leave encashment. There cannot be any reversal of this recovery. However, the petitioner is entitled to be told under which communication and on what calculations the said outstanding dues were raised. The Government shall, therefore, provide to the petitioner the communication from the Gramin Bank pursuant to which the said amount has been recovered and paid over to the Bank. Though the Bank is not a party it is provided that the Bank shall also provide the breakup of the demand raised from the petitioner towards the outstanding dues. Thereafter, if the petitioner has any dispute, the same would be between the petitioner and the Bank.

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

The amount of Rs.3,04,409/- of gratuity which is yet to be released shall be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of 4(four) weeks from today. This would be subject to the petitioner agreeing to a similar sum being recovered from his pension. It would thus be open for the respondents to recover the said amount from the petitioner's unpaid pensionary and other benefits and deposit the same with the corporation.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.