SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Tri) 217

ARINDAM LODH
Kirit Bhattacharjee – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Ms.A. Debbarma, Advocate., for the Petitioner; Mr. R. Saha, Mr. B.S. Bhowmik, Advocates., for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Ms. A. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Mr. B.S.Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Tripura Handloom and Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd.

2. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has 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 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 make the full and final payment of Gratuity (Rs.10,00,000/-) with interest @ 9% per annum to the petitioner, w.e.f. the date of payment after adjusting lump sum amount of Rs.10,00,000/-.

(II) Make rules absolute.

(III) Call for records.

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

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was an employee under the Tripura Handloom & Handicrafts Development Corporation (for short, THHDC) Ltd, the respondent nos.3 and 4 resp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top