Shila Paul And Ors vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 5.

[2] All these writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.949 of 2018 [Smt. Shila Paul vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No.950 of 2018 [Sri Anil Debbarma vs. State of Tripura & Ors.] and W.P.(C) No.951 of 2018 [Sri Bijan Lal Debnath vs. State of Tripura & Ors.] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as the relief as sought in the writ petitions appears identical. The petitioners have urged this court to direct the respondents to make full and final payment of gratuity with interest @9% per annum to the petitioners w.e.f.03.03.2018 till the payment is made. It has been further urged to direct the respondents to release the leave encashment benefit. It has been also urged that the respondents be directed to release the pension, New Group Superannuation Cash Accumulation Scheme [NGSCA in short] to the petitioners. The petitioners were working in the Tripura Rehabilitation Plantation Corporation Ltd., the TRPC in short, and on superannuation, they have retired from their service on various dates. So far the petitioner of W.P.(C) No.949 of 2018 is concerned, she has retired from the service on superannuation on 31.01.2018 as the Accountant. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.950 of 2018 has retired from the service on superannuation on 30.11.2017 as Senior Field Supervisor. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.951 of 2018 has retired from the service on superannuation on 31.01.2018 from the post of Field Supervisor. At the time of their retirement, the petitioners became entitled to the final payment of gratuity, leave salary and the pension under the trust created by the respondent No.2 with the Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. By the notification dated 08.11.2011 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.951 of 2018] the Managing Director, the respondent No.2, informed all concerned that the Board of Directors of the said corporation had taken a resolution vide resolution No.8 on 30.01.2008 that, that would set up the LICI Group Gratuity scheme for payment of gratuity to the regular employees. To that end, a trust would be created. From the minutes of 117th meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent No.2 held on 15.09.2015 it appears that the following resolution was adopted:

"The Board after thorough discussion resolved to approve the introduction of Group Pension Scheme under LICI for the retirement benefits of regular employees of TRPC Ltd."

That was never recalled by any formal resolution. When the petitioners asked for release of the benefits those accrued for their retirement, the respondents did not take any positive step as they were obligated to. That apart, the respondents have taken a position that the requisite money has not been sanctioned by the Finance Department for commencement of the scheme. By a communication dated 28.09.2018, the respondent No.2 was apprised by the administrative department in the form of observation/clarification that ex-post facto approval will not be accorded by the Finance Department. It has been further apprised as follows:

"It is made clear that Finance Department shall not provide any financial assistance to TRPC for implementation of any scheme that is in violation of the rules of Financial Discipline. It is upon the concerned Corporation to decide the next course of action on whether to continue the scheme or wind up the same."

[3] After receiving the said letter regretting the financial assistance for purpose of running the said pension scheme with the LICI, the corporation had framed guidelines to secure the retirement benefit of present employees including the petitioners. In Para-16 of the reply, the respondents have averred that after receiving the said decision, the corporation had started payment of gratuity and leave salary to the retired employees. At the time of filing the reply, at least 7[seven] retired employees received their gratuity and leave salary. In the resolution of the 129th Board meeting held on 10.10.2008, it has been clearly resolved that to formulate suitable rational policy it is planned that the corporation would tie up with the LICI. It has been also asserted in the said Para-16 that the petitioners are getting their pension from the EPF.

[4] Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the formation of the said pension scheme, the petitioners are entitled to get pension from the said fund. [5] Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 5 has on instruction stated that the petitioners may receive the gratuity and the leave encashment at any point of time from the respondents-corporation. But they cannot get any benefit as pension inasmuch as the said programme has been abandoned.

At this juncture, Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has quite strenuously argued that in view of the existence of the said pension scheme on the day of their retirement, the petitioners are entitled to get pension. The right since was existing on the day of their superannuation, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their pension. But the respondents have categorically stated in their reply that the purpose for which the NGSCA scheme was adopted in conjunction with the LICI, is quite understandable and that is to provide a better relief in the form of pension which is not directly available to its officers.

[6] Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel in this regard has submitted that the respondent No.2 does not have its resource to maintain such programme and accordingly, they have withdrawn the amount that was deposited by them to the LICI declaring the abandonment of that programme/scheme. That action was despondent as from such pension scheme few employees would have been getting a sizable pension for their subsistence. That programme has not been abandoned for paucity of fund.

[7] This court cannot not direct the state-respondent to release the fund and hence, the matter is left for consideration by the respondent No.1 afresh whether with their collaboration such pension fund can run for the employees of the respondent No.2 or not. An unqualified statement has been made by Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 5 that the gratuity and the leave encashment can be availed by the petitioners on any day. Hence, it is directed that the leave encashment and the gratuity, as available under Section 4 of the Gratuity Act be released to the petitioners with interest @6% per annum from the date when the gratuity was due in terms of Section 7(3) of the Gratuity Act, 1972 read with Rule 7 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972. Even the leave encashment shall be released. The benefits that accrued in terms of the above, to the petitioners shall be paid within a period of 2[two] months from the day when the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this order.

Before parting with the records, it is made absolutely clear that if in future the pension scheme as stated above is restored or restituted, the petitioners shall get the benefit out of it despite their retirement on the days as stated above.

In terms of the above, these writ petitions stand allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

A copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel appearing for the parties.