Back
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S. Datta Purkayastha, J.
Sri Ratan Kumar Das - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.745 of 2023
Decided On : 03-07-2024
Gratuity - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Sections 4(2), 5 - The court interpreted the applicability of the revised ceiling limit of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, emphasizing that the revised limit of Rs. 20,00,000 must be applied to the petitioner, overriding state regulations that set a lower limit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Steno-Typist, claimed full gratuity and revised pay benefits after retirement, arguing that the revised ceiling limit of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 should apply, despite state regulations limiting it to Rs. 10,00,000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to gratuity calculated at the revised ceiling limit of Rs. 20,00,000 as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and that the denial of revised pay benefits was arbitrary.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to gratuity and revised pay benefits under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the applicability of state regulations versus central provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972's provisions, including the revised ceiling limit, apply to the petitioner, and state regulations cannot provide less favorable terms.
Result: The writ petition is allowed; the respondents must re-determine the gratuity and leave encashment benefits for the petitioner as per the revised ceiling limit.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
S. Datta Purkayastha, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:
(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 with interest @ 9% per annum to the Petitioner w.e.f. the date on which gratuity became payable till date of payment after adjusting lump sum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- already paid.
(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 allow the benefit of revised pay scale to the Petitioner as per Tripura State Pay Matrix-2018.
(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 directing the Respondents to recalculate the initial pay of the Petitioner as per Tripura State Pay Matrix-2018 and re-determination of gratuity and leave encashment benefit.
(iv) 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 release the contributions made by the Petitioner on account of GSLI.
2. As stated, the petitioner was appointed as Steno-Typist under the respondents in District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) vide Memorandum dated 16.01.1982 and after rendering service of 37 years, he went on superannuation on 31.12.2019 from the post of PS-IV. His last basic pay was Rs.83,010/-. His first grievance is that at the time of retirement, the Chief Executive Officer, DRDA, Gomati i.e. the D.M. & Collector, Gomati District issued approval and expenditure sanction of Rs.13,69,665/- in his favour on the count of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity but only Rs.10,00,000/- was credited in his account stating that the said amount was only admissible as per notification of the Finance Department, Government of Tripura dated 11.07.2017, though vide notification dated 29.03.2018 the upper ceiling limit of gratuity was enhanced from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- by the Central Government. According to him, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable in his case.
3. The second count of grievance of the petitioner is that the Finance Department concurred with the proposal of DRDA towards implementation of revised pay scale in terms of Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) (1st Amendment) Rules, 2018 (for short-Revised Pay - 1st Amendment Rules of 2018) in respect of the staff working under the DRDA subject to the condition that the revision may be considered w.e.f. 01.10.2018 notionally and actual benefit may be given from 01.04.2020 and also the arrear may be paid, if fund is sufficient. As regards the decision on revision of gratuity and leave salary for these categories of employees, the same was decided to be taken at a later date on the basis of the flow of fund. According to the petitioner, such decision of the Finance Department was evident from a letter dated 05.03.2020 (Annexure-10 of the writ petition) of Director (Projects), DRDA, addressed to the Chief Executive Officers (D.M. & Collector) of all Districts, but the benefit of such pay matrix was denied to the petitioner though he retired on 31.12.2019 and refusal of such benefits was communicated to him vide letter dated 25.08.2021 (Annexure-12 of the writ petition) of Director (Projects), SLMC, RD, Government of Tripura on the ground that as he had retired on 31.12.2019, he was not entitled to any such financial benefit. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to both gratuity and leave salary in terms of said Revised Pay - 1st Amendment Rules of 2018.
4. The third count of g
The revised ceiling limit of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to all employees, overriding state regulations that set lower limits.
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.
Once full amount of gratuity becomes payable to the employee due to the consequences of law, then the right to get statutory interest in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, cannot ....
Withholding gratuity post-retirement without notice or opportunity to contest alleged incorrect pay fixation is impermissible and deemed harsh.
The gratuity payable to an employee is governed by the law applicable at their date of retirement, and amounts exceeding the statutory ceiling limit are recoverable.
The court affirmed the applicability of revised gratuity limits as per the Central Government notification and ruled that financial constraints do not exempt employers from timely payment of gratuity....
Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be withheld on the basis of dues unless misconduct is established prior to retirement.
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
