Page 1 of 6

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

WP(C) No.353/2020

Shri Dilip Das, S/o Lt. Kartik Chandra Das,

resident of Barjala, P.O. Barjala,

P.S. – West Agartala, Barjala, dist.- West Tripura.

…….. Petitioner(s).

Vs.

1. The State of Tripura

to be represented by the Principal Secretary,

Department of Home, Government of Tripura,

New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,

Kunjaban, P.S – New Capital Complex, Agartala,

Dist - West Tripura, Pin 799 010.

2. The Principal Secretary,

GA(AR) Department, Government of Tripura,

New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,

Kunjaban, P.S – New Capital Complex, Agartala,

Dist - West Tripura, Pin 799 010.

3. The Director General of Police, Tripura,

Government of Tripura, Police Head Quarter,

Fire Brigade Chowmuhani, Agartala, Tripura,

Pin – 799 003.

4. The superintendent of Police (Vigilance)

Government of Tripura, Police Line,

A. D. Nagar, Agartala, West Tripura,

Pin – 799 003.

…….. Respondent(s).

For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. S Deb(Gupta), Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. D Sharma, Additional Government Advocate.

Page 2 of 6

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

_O_R_D_E_ R_

05/8/2020

Petitioner’s grievance is about certain deductions made from his

gratuity.

[2]

Brief facts are as under :

The petitioner after 37 years of service wanted to proceed on

voluntary retirement. Since the department was not accepting the notice the

petitioner filed WP(C) No.1440/2019 which was disposed of by an order of

20^th December, 2019. In such order it was provided that the petitioner would

be deemed to have retired from the time when he stopped rendering service

and receiving salary. It was provided that the pension and post retiral benefits

shall be released on such basis. Pursuant to such directions, the petitioner

became entitled to receive pension and gratuity. The department passed an

order dated 5^th June, 2020 (which is challenged in this petition) in which

while fixing his gratuity at Rs.8,06,850/- an order was passed to pay

provisional sum of Rs.6,05,138/- being 75% of the full gratuity calculated.

From the said sum the department recovered a sum of Rs.3,04,409/- towards

outstanding dues of OBC Development Corporation Ltd. and a further sum of

Rs.1,90,823/- which would be transferred to Tripura Gramin Bank towards

Page 3 of 6

the petitioner’s loan account. Rest of the amount of Rs.1,09,906/- would be

paid to the petitioner.

[3]

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no recoveries from the

gratuity could have been made as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Further for the loan of OBC Development Corporation, petitioner was not a

principal borrower but merely a guarantor. The principal borrower has

showed willingness to pay up the outstanding dues failing which the

petitioner would pay. In any case, the amount cannot be recovered at this

stage.

[4]

With respect to the loan of the Tripura Gramin Bank she submitted

that the petitioner is a principal borrower but the amount recovered is far in

excess of his dues. In any case, neither the Bank nor the Government has

provided the breakup of the said sum.

[5]

Counsel drew my attention to the orders dated 12^th June, 2020 and

13^th July, 2020 by which the Court had stayed the execution and

implementation of the impugned order despite which the recoveries were

made. She submitted that the recoveries if at all could have been made from

the pensionary benefits and the leave encashment entitlement of the petitioner

but not from the gratuity.

Page 4 of 6

[6]

Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. M Debbarma

submitted that the amount of Rs.3,04,409/- which was adjusted previously

despite the stay order of the Court has been reversed and is now lying with

the Government Treasury. He further submitted that the Government had

received a communicat