Back
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
BISWAJIT PALIT, J.
Purabi Roy (Saha), W/o. Late Nepal Kanti Roy – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Tripura, To be represented by its Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Tripura and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.687 of 2024
Decided On : 20-01-2025
(A) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Sections 4(2) and 7(3) - Writ petition for payment of gratuity and interest - Petitioner claimed full gratuity amount of Rs.9,62,307/-; respondents paid Rs.8,47,900/- - Court found that gratuity was not paid within the stipulated time and calculated interest due - Petitioner entitled to balance amount of Rs.1,14,407/- with interest at specified rates. (Paras 12, 14, 18)
(B) Calculation of Gratuity - The employer must pay gratuity within 30 days of becoming payable; failure to do so incurs liability for interest. (Paras 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought payment of gratuity for her deceased husband, who retired on 31.12.2018. The respondents released partial payments but failed to pay the full amount timely, leading to the petition. (Paras 3, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the gratuity amount was not calculated correctly and that the petitioner was entitled to the balance amount and interest. (Paras 12, 18)
Issues: The main issues were the calculation of gratuity and the entitlement to interest due to delayed payment. (Paras 10, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the employer's failure to pay gratuity within the statutory period necessitates the payment of interest, and the calculation of gratuity must adhere to the provisions of the Act. (Paras 12, 18)
Result: Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to pay the balance amount with interest within four months.
JUDGMENT :
BISWAJIT PALIT, J.
By means of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for 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 8,47,900/- 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 pay the Petitioner interest @ 9% per annum on Rs 1,80,827/-, w.e.f., 01.02.2019 to 23.10.2019.
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 issed whereby directing the Respondents to pay interest @ 9% per annum to the Petitioner Rs.1,24,592/- w.e.f. 01.02.2019 to 08.01.2020.
iv) Make the rules absolute.
v) Call for records.
vi) Pass any further order/orders as this Hon’ble High Court considers fit and proper.
AND
For this act of kindness, your humble Petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.
2. Heard Learned Counsel Ms. A. Debbarma representing the petitioner and also heard Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. M. Debbarma appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.
3. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner first of all drawn the attention of this Court that the husband of the petitioner namely Nepal Kanti Roy was an employee under Kumarghat Municipal Council and discharged his functions as Town Supervisor and on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.12.2018 from the same post (Annexure-2).
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Kumarghat Municipal Council in this regard issued one release order from which it appears that he was released from that office on 31.12.2018 (Annexure-3).
5. After that, the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Kumarghat Municipal Council under Unokoti District issued Pension Payment Order of said Nepal Kanti Roy on 22.09.2020 (Annexure-4).
6. In the mean time, the Director, Directorate of Urban Development approached the Chief Executive Officer, Kumarghat Municipal Council by a communication dated 09.09.2019 requesting him to make payment of Rs.1,80,827/- towards payment of gratuity out of total amount of Rs.7,23,308/- to said Nepal Kanti Roy, Retired Town Supervisor (Annexure-5) and accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer, Kumarghat Municipal Council issued two sanction memos on 30.01.2019 and 23.10.2019 by which an amount of Rs.5,42,481/- being the provisional gratuity and further amount of Rs.1,80,827/- being the balance 25% of gratuity amount were sanctioned in favour of Nepal Kanti Roy (Annexure-6 and 7). Further, according to Learned Counsel, said Nepal Kanti Roy expired on 06.12.2023 and the Deputy Chief Executive Officer issued one death certificate on 13.12.2023 in this regard (Annexure-8).
7. Thereafter, the SDM, Kumarghat, Unakoti issued survival certificate on 03.02.2024 (Annexure-9) showing the present petitioner Smt. Purabi Roy Saha, his wife, Mr. Nabarun Roy, his son and Mrs. Anamika Roy, his daughter as his legal heirs.
8. Thereafter, the petitioner issued legal notice through her concerned Learned Advocate on 17.05.2024 (Annexure-10) to the respondents for releasing the remaining amount of Gratuity with 9% interest for deferred payment of Gratuity. But as there was some typographical error in the legal notice so the petitioner further served legal notice upon the respondents by another communication dated 02.09.2024 (Annexure-11) and accordingly, the Joint Director, Urban Development Department made reply to the said legal notice on 09.09.2024 (Annexure-12) and the Deputy CEO, Kumarghat Munic
Employer must pay gratuity within 30 days of becoming payable; failure incurs liability for interest as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The right to interest on delayed gratuity payments is statutory and mandatory under Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Interpreting Act unequivocally indicate that payment of gratuity would not depend upon employee filing an application before employer demanding gratuity but will have to be paid immediately on cessat....
Employees are entitled to gratuity benefits under insurance policies that exceed statutory limits as per the Payment of Gratuity Act.
The entire duration of an employee's service is considered for Gratuity entitlements, and non-deposit of awarded Gratuity prevents appellants from successfully appealing against such claims.
Interest under the Payment of Gratuity Act is due from the date of entitlement unless hindered by claim delays, resulting in dismissal of a petition for earlier interest claims.
Entitlement to delayed gratuity payments includes the right to receive penal interest, reinforcing statutory obligations of payment by public authorities.
Gratuity entitlements exceed statutory limits if stipulated in insurance contracts, and banks are required to comply with contractual obligations under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
The mandatory obligation of employers to pay gratuity within the specified timeframe includes the responsibility to pay interest on delayed payments, as established by the Payment of Gratuity Act.
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
