Employees are entitled to gratuity payments as per revised ceiling limits established by the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2018, regardless of employers' financial constraints.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. De, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents and Mr. K. C. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Tripura Road Transport Corporation.

2. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

'Under the circumstances stated above, it is submitted, that the Hon'ble High Court would be kind enough to:-

(I) Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders/and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to make the full and final payment of Gratuity with interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.2,25,384/- to the petitioner no.1 w.e.f. 03.04.2022, till the date of payment.

(II) Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders/and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to make the full and final payment of Gratuity with interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.2,27,692/- to the petitioner no.2 w.e.f. 01.11.2021, till the date of actual payment.

(III Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders/and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to make the full and final payment of Gratuity with interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner no.2 w.e.f. 01.11.2021 to 01.04.2022 i.e. upto the date on which 10,00,000/- was paid.

(IV) Make rules absolute.

(V) Call for records.

(VII) Pass any further order/orders as this Hon'ble High Court considered fit and proper.'

3. Briefly stated, the petitioners were the employees under the Tripura Road Transport Corporation (for short, TRTC), the respondent nos.3 and 4. Petitioner no.1 joined in the service on 03.03.1986 as a Bus Conductor. After attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 28.02.2022. Petitioner no.2 joined in the service on 28.02.1986 as a Traffic Assistant and after attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service w.e.f. 30.09.2021. It is the contention of the petitioners that after the retirement as per ceiling limit of Rs.20,00,000/-, the petitioner no.1 is entitled to Rs.12,62,146/- and the petitioner no.2 is entitled to Rs.12,64,523/- as gratuity. But, the respondents-TRTC have caused payment of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the petitioners as gratuity. The petitioners have prayed for payment of balance amount which they are entitled to along with 9% interest till the date of actual payment. It is further contended that the Govt. of India by Notification, dated, 29.03.2018 notified that the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under the Act shall not exceed Rs.20,00,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioners have urged that they are also entitled to gratuity at the enhanced rate i.e. Rs.20,00,000/- as per Payment of Gratuity (Amendment Act), 2018.

4. At the very outset, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this writ petition is well covered by the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 20.02.2020 in case of Lal Zakim Rokhum v. Tripura Road Transport Corporation & Anr. in WP(C) No.1209 of 2019. Respondents did not seriously oppose this proposition. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the learned Single Judge may be reproduced here-in-below:

'[4] The corporation contends that such revised ceiling for payment of gratuity would not be applicable to State Government Corporations unless the Government notifies such revised ceiling and permits the Corporation to pay the same. In this context respon