Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No. 107 of 2024
Sri Tapan Kumar Chakraborty
Petitioner(s)
…….
Versus
The State of Tripura & Ors.
…….Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. K. Dhar, Sr. Adv.
: Mr. R. Debnath, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Dy. S.G.I.
: Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, G.A.
MR. JUSTICE S. D. PURKAYASTHA
HON’BLE
O_R_D_E_R
28.03.2024
Heard Mr. P. K. Dhar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Mr. R. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, learned G.A.
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as Mr. B. Majumder,
learned Dy. S.G.I. appearing for the respondent No.4.
The petitioner was serving in the department of the
Inspector General of Prisons, Prisons Directorate, Tripura, Agartala
and his last place of posting was in the office of the Superintendent,
District Jail Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura wherefrom he went on
superannuation in the afternoon of 31.10.2021 on attaining his age of
60 years.
Admittedly, during service he received an house building
st
advance of Rs.27,500/- as 1 (first) installment out of which according
to the respondents he returned Rs.2,500/- and rest amount of
Rs.25,000/- was still recoverable from him. On his retirement, the
Department calculated his gratuity to the tune of Rs.9,44,000/- and
released Rs.7,08,000/- and rest …(one-fourth) of gratuity amounting
Page 2 of 3
to Rs.2,36,000/- was kept withhold by respondent Nos.1 to 3. The
petitioner in his writ petition asserted that he had already returned
the total amount of Rs.27,500/-, but despite the same the employer
did not release the said total amount of gratuity and with that
grievance he filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents and each
“
of them to show cause as to why a writ of certiorari and/or
in the like nature shall not be issued for transmitting the
relevant records lying with them for rendering substantive
and conscionable justice to the Petitioner;
(ii) Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents and
each of them to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus
and/or in the like nature shall not be issued
mandating/directing them to release the remaining 1/4 th
amount of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity to the Petitioner
immediately;
(iii) Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents and
each of them to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus or
in the like nature shall not be issued directing them to
release the remaining 1/4 th amount of Death-cum-
Retirement Gratuity in favour of the Petitioner without delay
along with bank interest upon the said 1/4 th amount of
Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity amounting to Rs.2,36,000/-;
(iv) Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents and
each of them to show cause as to why appropriate writ/order
shall not be issued to release the rest 1/4 th amount of
Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity to the Petitioner along with
bank interest thereon;
(v) Call for other records appertaining to this
application;
(vi) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make
the rule absolute;
(vii) Cost of the proceeding and incidental thereto;
(viii) Granting any other relief which may be deemed
fit and proper;
“
During hearing, Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, learned
G.A submits that though averred by the petitioner that he had repaid
the total amount, but the same could not be proved by him by
Page 3 of 3
producing any sort of document and as per records of the
department, Rs.25,000/- is still recoverable from him. To justify
legality of such withholdment of gratuity, learned G.A. also referred a
decision Steel Authority of India Ltd.
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Vs. Raghbendra Singh & Ors., (2021) 18 SCC 272 wherein it was
observed that penal rent for occupation of quarters beyond the
specified period can be adjusted against the dues payable including
gratuity. Mr. Dhar, learned Sr. Counsel in reply contends that the said
Rs.25,000/- may be adjusted from the amount as kept withhold and
rest amount may be immediately released.
In view of the above said submission of both sides, the
respondent Nos.1 to 3 are hereby directed to adjust the said
Rs.25,000/- from the withheld amount of Rs.2,36,000/- and the rest
amount of Rs.2,11,000/- be released by respondent Nos.1 to 3 in
favour of the petitioner within a period of 6(six) weeks from today.
With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is accordingly
disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Digitally signed by SATABDI
SATABDI
DUTTA
Date: 2024.04.02 10:18:58
DUTTA
+05'30'
Riki