Tripura High Court: Amended Gratuity Limits Applicable Irrespective of Changes in Internal Regulations

Must Read

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court...

Follow us

On 5th August 2020, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Tripura High Court Mr. Akhil Kureshi dealt with the case of Smt Dalia Chakraborty & Anr vs. The State of Tripura & Ors. He assessed the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act 2010.

Facts of the Case

Petitioners are legal heirs (widow and son) of Mr. Soumendra Chakraborty, a deceased employee of The Tripura Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited who retired on 31.05.2010. The gratuity was calculated to Rs.6,23,310/-, but only Rs.3,50,00/- was paid on the premise that that was the maximum gratuity payable under the Act.

Mr. Soumendra expired on 9.12.2014 leaving behind his wife and son as legal heirs. The Petitioners pointed out that notice was sent to the bank for themselves and several other retired employees for payment of the remaining amount as per revised limits. Despite repeated notices, the bank failed to pay the accurate amount of gratuity. The present petition has been filed to receive full gratuity on the ground that the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act 2010, enhanced the limit to 10,00,000.

Arguments Advanced

Petitioners argued that the amendment to the Act was made before the retirement and hence the enhanced ceiling limit would be applicable.

Respondent argued that as on the date of retirement the maximum gratuity payable under the bank resolution was Rs.3,50,000 and the same was paid to Mr. Soumendra immediately on retirement. A subsequent rise in the limit according to the amendment was made by the bank management in a meeting and resolved only on 30.11.2015.

Court’s Observation and Decision

The court observed that there is no ambiguity regarding the fact that the amendment came before the retirement of the deceased employee and therefore this entitles the employee to the higher ceiling. This position was clarified in earlier cases of Hari Bhusan Sutradhar & Anr vs. Tripura Cooperative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd & Ors. And Smt. Minati Deb (Das) vs. the State of Tripura & Ors. with identical issues wherein the Court held in the case of the same bank that the revised limit would apply to the employees retired after the amendment in the law.

The issues at hand are squarely covered by the above-mentioned judgments and is a position well settled in law through precedents and therefore it is difficult to understand why the bank has not released the unpaid gratuity in favor of the Petitioners. Though the bank resolution has raised the limit and made it a part of internal regulation, the same was not applied for immediate recourse to the Petitioners and compelled them to move a writ petition. While the bank retained the money which belonged to the Petitioners and has caused an unreasonable delay in rational dealing of the matter.

Though the Petitioner has also shown some delay in approaching the court, the court observed that the Respondents are liable to pay reasonable interest for the period of delay. The court in pursuance to the observation made ordered that the remaining amount or unpaid gratuity be released to the Petitioners. Also, the Respondents shall also pay a simple interest of 7.5% per annum from the expiry of one month after the date of retirement will actual payment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta High Court on 22nd January...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by the Petitioners (wife) challenging the...

Calcutta High Court: Deceased’s Wife Has the Sole Right Over His Preserved Sperm; Father Doesn’t Have Any Fundamental Right Over Son’s Progeny Without the...

Case: Asok Kumar Chatterjee vs. The Union of India & Ors. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition by the Petitioner (father) on 19th...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife to transfer the case from...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the Higher Education Department for passing...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed that one has to...

Indonesian Spa Therapist Approaches Supreme Court Regarding Illegal Detention Followed by Raid at the Spa

An Indonesian spa therapist has moved to Supreme Court, whilst challenging an HC order which provided relief to the police inspector who was involved in the illegal detention of the spa therapist in a woman’s home which was followed by a police raid at the spa.

Questions of Forgery, Tampering Not Capable of Summary Adjudication Under Article 226 in Delhi High Court’s Jee Marks Case

Questions of fraud, forgery, and tampering require elaborate evidence as per the ruling of the Delhi High Court making it incapable of summary adjudication...

Supreme Court: Urgent and Immediate Reforms Needed in the Legal Education Due To Mushrooming of Law Schools

The Supreme Court, on Saturday, said that there is an urgent need for reforming the legal education in the country as its quality is being affected due to the ‘mushrooming’ of Law Colleges.

Delhi High Court Ruled Disclosure of Interest in Information Sought Under Rti Act Necessary to Establish Bonafides of Applicant

The Delhi HC opined that disclosure of the interest of information is necessary for the information sought under the RTI Act for establishing bonafide...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -