State government employees are excluded from the Payment of Gratuity Act, and their gratuity entitlement is regulated by separate Pension Rules, confirming a ceiling limit of Rs. 4 lakh.

JUDGMENT

1. This batch of writ petitions is taken up for disposal by a common judgment since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions.

2. By means of filing the present writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs in WP(C) no. 106 of 2022 which has been taken up as the lead case:

'(i) Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a 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 cause full and final payment of gratuity to the petitioner on the basis of Ceiling Limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- by taking into account 41 years of service as rendered by the Petitioner and the last basic pay of Rs. 26,260/- and his Dearness Allowance of Rs. 19,430 after adjusting the payment already made to the Petitioner;

(ii) Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a 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 cause payment of interest @75% per annum on the balance amount of gratuity w.e.f. the date on which gratuity became payable i.e. 30 days after retirement from service till the date payment is made;

(iii) Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby declaring that the Notification dated 05.05.2009 issued by the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura and the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised pension) Rules, 2009 is not applicable to the petitioner and in the matter of determining the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 will prevail;

(iv) Make the Rules absolute;

(v) Call for the records pertaining to the instant writ petition;

(vi) Pass any further Order(s) as this Hon'ble High Court considers fit and proper'.

3. I have heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Additional GA, Mr. D. Sarma, learned Additional GA, appearing for the respondents-State and Mr. B. Majumder, learned Assistant SG appearing for the respondents-Union of India.

4. The simple question centres round the present dispute is whether the State government employees are entitled to get the benefit of the ceiling limit as prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in respect of payment of gratuity on their retirement.

5. All the petitioners of the present batch of writ petitions are retired government employees. All of them retired from service when Tripura Civil Services (Revised pension) Rules, 2009 (for short, Pension Rules, 2009) was prevalent. During the tenure of their service the petitioners held different posts in different capacities under the government of Tripura.

6. Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel has submitted that a learned Single Judge of this Court in case no. WP(C) 204 of 2020 has directed the State government to revisit Rule 9 of the ROP Rules, 2017, and further, the State government should bring parity in determining the gratuity at par with the ceiling limit, as prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

7. I have considered the submission of learned senior counsel as well as the direction of the learned Single Judge in the above mentioned writ petition.

8. Keeping in view the submission of learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, it would be useful to peruse Section 2 (e) of