Central legislation on gratuity limits prevails over state rules. The state must align its rules with central amendments to avoid conflict and ensure uniformity in employee benefits.

ORDER

S. Talapatra, J. - Heard Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court to direct the respondents to pay his gratuity, payable within the upper limit at Rs.20,00,000/-, instead of Rs.4,00,000/- on which he has been paid his gratuity by the respondent No.2. By means of the amendment, carried out in Sub-Section-3 of Section-4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the earlier provision of relating to maximum limit for payment of gratuity has been rephrased in the following manner:

"The amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall not exceed. Such amount as may be notified by the Central Government from time to time. "The Central Government having regard to the said provision [Sub-Section-3 of Section-4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972] has specified the amount for gratuity to be paid to an employee under the said Act. It has been notified that the amount shall not exceed Rs.20,00,000/- [see A.O.1420(E) dated 29.03.2018]. Prior to the said notification, the amount as referred in Sub-Section-3 of Section-4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, was Rs. 10,00,000/-, which was enhanced from Rs.4,00,000/-, by virtue of the amendment Act 12 of 2018 which has come into effect from 29.03.2018. According to the petitioner, his gratuity is to be paid in terms of the said amendment or enhancement which was lastly made on 29.03.2018. But the respondents have seriously resisted such prayer by stating that the petitioner's payment of gratuity would be regulated by Rule-9 of Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017 which provides, inter alia, as under:

"The existing ceiling limit of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity shall stand enhanced from Rs.4.00 lakhs to 10.00 lakhs for employees proceeded on superannuation/retirement on or after 01.04.2017. The other conditions of the existing formula of computation of DCRG amount will remain unchanged."

3. Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when there is a conflict between the provision made by the Central Government acting on the statutory provision, that shall be binding on the State Government. In support of that contention, she has relied on a decision of this court in Lal Zakim Rokhum versus Tripura Road Transport Corporation and Other [judgment and order dated 20.02.2020 delivered in WP(C)No.1209 of 2019]. This court in the said decision having relied on Sri Bhupati Debnath versus State of Tripura and Others [judgment and order dated 13.02.2020 delivered in WP(C)No.1054 of 2019] and Smt. Mamata Singha Roy versus State of Tripuraand Another [judgment and order dated 13.02.2020 delivered in WP(C)No.1057 of 2019] has observed that the gratuity shall be payable in terms of the enhanced rate.

4. On a critical scrutiny of the referred judgment in Bhupati Debnath (supra) it is noticed that in the judgment, this court had occasion to observe as follows :

"10. It can thus be seen that insofar as the payment of gratuity, its computation and the ceiling up to which such amount can be paid as referred to in Section 4 of the said Act, the term "appropriate Government" has no bearing. This distinction is also apparent from the statement of objects and reasons which provides that for the purpose of uniformity, the Central Act was envisaged. At the same time, appropriate Government is for the purpose of administering the Act. The ceiling limit for payment of gratuity is provided in sub-section