BIKASH PAUL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3. Despite due notice, the respondent No.4 is not represented when the matter is taken up for hearing.

(2.) Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the North Tripura Fish Farmers Development Agency is a society receiving grant-in-aid for extending the beneficial service to the Fish Farmers. The petitioner was serving as the Upper Division Clerk (UDC) against the sanctioned post of the accountant with effect from 02.05.1996 on due approval. After his superannuation on 31.01.2018 the petitioner is entitled to receive the superannuation benefits like leave salary etc. Leave salary has been paid to the petitioner but no gratuity has been paid as yet in terms of Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to the gratuity to the extent of Rs.6,32,812/- with interest payable under Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

(3.) Mr. Datta, learned counsel has relied on the judgment dated 06.08.2018 delivered in a series of writ petitions including WP(C)No.1205 of 2017 titled as Sunil Das v. State of Tripura and Others. In the said judgment under the similar circumstances, this court has directed the respondents to pay the retirement gratuity after observing that the question regarding entitlement for payment of gratuity and leave encashment to the employees of the West Tripura FFDA is no more res integra. This court has held further that each of the petitioners is entitled to gratuity and leave encashment, if not paid so far in terms of Sec.4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. As the causes of delay are not attributable to the petitioners, that makes them entitled for interest @ 9% per annum for the delay in payment of gratuity in terms of Sec.7(3A) of the Act, 1972.