HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.340 of 2024
1. Shri Shanu Debnath
S/O Late Sajal Debnath.
2. Smt. Krishna Debnath Acharjee
D/o Late Sajal Debnath.
Both are residing Jogendranagar,
P.O. Jogendranagar, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, Dist:- West Tripura,
Pin: 799004.
------ Petitioners
Versus
1. The General Manager OPR Central Office,
–
Central Bank of India
Mumbai Main Office Building, Second Floor
M. G. Road, Fort
Mumbai-400023
2. The Central Bank of India
Employees Gratuity Fund Office,
Corporate Office of Central Bank of India,
Chandermukhi, Nariman Point
Mumbai-400021
3. The Senior Manager
rd
Central Bank Building, 3 Floor
Regional office of Central Bank of India
G.S. Road, Bhangagarh
Guwahati- 781005
4. The Branch Manager
Central Bank of India
Lichu Bagan Branch
VIP Road, Agartala
West Tripura-799009
------ Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. R. Majumder, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. R. Paul, Adv.
Date of hearing : 13.12.2024
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 18.12.2024
Whether fit for
reporting : NO
Page 2 of 7
. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
HON’BLE MR
Judgment & Order
Heard Learned Counsel, Ms. R. Majumder appearing for
the petitioners and also heard Learned Counsel, Mr. P. R. Paul
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners drawn the attention of this Court
that the father of the petitioners Sajal Debnath (since dead)
was a sub-staff of the Central Bank of India, Lichubagan
(Barkathal) Branch, Agartala, Employee No.91598 (Annexure-
1) who expired on 14.03.2005 leaving behind the petitioners
along with their mother Khuku Mani Debnath @ Khuku i.e.
wife of the deceased employee and the grand-mother of the
petitioners as his heirs and the Agartala Municipal Council,
West Tripura issued Death Certificate of the deceased father of
the petitioners on 24.03.2005 (Annexure-2).
3. After the death of the father of the petitioners, the
concerned bank had given pension to their mother i.e. the wife
of the deceased employee as guardian of the family but on
07.03.2012, the mother of the petitioners also expired leaving
behind the petitioners as her legal heirs and accordingly the
Agartala Municipal Council issued Death Certificate of the
mother of the petitioners on 26.03.2012 (Annexure-3).
4. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for survival
certificate to the SDM, Sadar, West Tripura and accordingly,
Page 3 of 7
they got survival certificate from the SDM, Sadar, West
Tripura on 20.04.2013(Annexure-4) which was submitted to
the Lichubagan Branch and thereafter, the petitioner No.1 was
drawing pension being a minor son.
5. On 26.06.2014, the petitioners jointly made an
application to the Respondent No.3 i.e. the Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India, Regional Officer, G.S. Road,
Bhangagarh, Guwahati for releasing the gratuity amount and
other service benefits of their deceased father Sajal Debnath
(Annexure-5).
6. After that, on 25.05.2017, the petitioners again made
joint application to the respondent No.3 for releasing the gratuity
amount of their deceased father and it was informed that all the
necessary documents in this connection were submitted by them
to the Bank but no response was given (Annexure-7).
7. Further, on 18.01.2018, petitioners again made joint
application to the respondent No.3 for releasing of the gratuity
amount and other service benefits of their deceased father but
the respondent No.3 did not release any gratuity amount nor
released any service benefit to the petitioners (Annexure-8).
8. It was further submitted that as no action was taken, the
petitioners further made joint application to the respondent No.4
for releasing of the service benefit of the deceased father which
was received by the said respondent on 07.08.2023 (Annexure-
9).
Page 4 of 7
9. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted indemnity bond on
24.08.2023 after duly signed for releasing of the gratuity amount
to the respondent No.2 but inspite of that also, no action was
taken (Annexure-10). Finding no other alternative way, the
petitioner served legal notice to the respondents (Annexure-11).
Thereafter, further communication was made by the petitioners
to the respondent-authority for releasing of the said amount
(Annexure-12) but inspite of series of communication, no action
was taken.
10. Later on, on 17.02.2024, the respondent Nos.1 to 4
called upon the petitioners over telephone and asked them to
submit some documents and accordingly, they submitted the
relevant documents (Annexure-13).
But as the respondent-authority inspite of receipt of
documents did not take any action so finally the petitioners have
filed this petition for directing the respondents to release the
benefits as prayed for.
11. The respondent-bank filed counter affidavit and in para
Nos. 23, 24 and 25, they have submitted as under:
“23. That, the respondents are agree for
releasing the gratuity amount, but when the
respondent inform the petitioners to fulfill
required, legal formalities as per Banking Rule
and procedure, the petitioners were unable to
submit all the required documents and the
respondent No.4 also inform the petitioners for
submit all relevant documents but they could
not provide.
24. That, after a long time the petitioners
provide the relevant document, in this regard
the respondents ensure that they are releasing
the amount payable after considering all legal
formalities as per Banking Rule.
25. That, after considering the age of majority
of the deceased father of the petitioners and
calculating the actual gratuity amounting
Page 5 of 7
Rs.58,188/- (Fifty Eight Thousand One
Hundred Eighty Eight) only as per Banking Rule
of gratuity for the petitioners.”
12. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel for the
respondents submitted that the respondent-Bank has already
released an amount of Rs.58,188/- as per calculation sheet
(Annexure-1) submitted by them before the Court furnishing
copy to the other side at the time of filing counter affidavit and
after releasing of that amount, nothing is left to the respondents
for releasing any further amount. So, Learned Counsel urged for
dismissal of the writ petition.
13. In course of hearing of argument, Learned Counsel for
the petitioners relied upon few citations. In F.R. Jesuratnam
Vs. Union of India reported in 1990(Supp) SCC 640, wherein
i observed as under:
n para No.2 Hon’ble the Apex Court
“2. We are of the view that gratuity is no
longer a bounty but it is a matter of right of the
employee and it can therefore no longer be
regarded as a provision in the discretion of the
President as provided in the Pension
Regulations. Since there is no legal provision
empowering the authorities to forfeit the
gratuity payable to an employee, the order
passed by the Government forfeiting the
gratuity payable to the appellant must be held
to be bad and must be set aside. We
accordingly set aside the order of the High
Court as also the Order of the Government
forfeiting the gratuity of the appellant and
direct that gratuity shall be paid to the
appellant forthwith. There will be no order as
to costs of the appeal. The appeal is disposed
of in these terms.”
Referring the same, Learned Counsel urged for directing
the respondent-bank to release all the service benefits of the
deceased father of the petitioners.
14. Learned Counsel further referred another citation
reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894 [D.D. Tewari(Dead) through
Page 6 of 7
Legal Representatives Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited and others]
wherein in para No.8, Hon’ble the Apex
Court observed as under:
“8. For the reasons stated above, we award
interest at the rate of 9% on the delayed
payment of pension and gratuity amount from
the date of entitlement till the date of actual
payment. If this amount is not paid within six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order, the same shall carry interest at the rate
of 18% per annum from the date the amount
falls due to the deceased employee. With the
above directions, this appeal is allowed.”
Referring the same, Learned Counsel submitted that for
delayed payment, the respondents be asked to pay interest at
the rate of 9% per annum on the calculated amount but the
respondent-authority at the time of calculation did not consider
the rate of interest as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the aforenoted case and urged for issuing necessary
direction upon the respondents.
15. I have heard both the sides at length and perused the
petition and the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-bank
authority. There is no dispute on record that the deceased Sajal
Debnath was a sub-staff of the Central Bank of India, Lichubagan
(Barkathal) Branch, Agartala who in course of his employment
expired on 14.03.2005 leaving behind the petitioners, wife
(deceased) and mother as his only legal heirs. The family
pension was given to the widow (deceased) of the deceased
employee and the minor petitioner No.1. Since the respondent-
bank authority has already released an amount of Rs.58,188/- in
favour of the petitioners towards gratuity of the deceased
employee and from the statement submitted by the respondent-
Page 7 of 7
bank, it is not clear as to whether the said amount involves rate
of interest or not and further the petitioners also could not show
any exact amount due from the respondent-bank, so, this writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-bank
authority also to release 9% interest per annum towards
retirement gratuity to the petitioners from the date of
entitlement to the date of actual payment, if the same is not
released, within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of
passing of this judgment.
With this observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
Pending applications(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
DATTA Date: 2024.12.19
16:47:01 -08'00'
Deepshikha