[1] Heard Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Bhaskar Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 12 and Mr. Agniva Chakrabarti, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.13 & 14.

[2] Common facts and issues are being involved in all the three writ petitions. The same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

[3] In WP(C) No.447 of 2025, there are 16 petitioners who were employees under Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (in short, TTAADC) in different capacities, and all of them went on retirement on different dates in the year 2024 and 2025. It is their grievance that after retirement, they were not paid regular monthly pension, gratuity, leave encashment benefits and the amount payable as GPF, including commutation of pension and group insurance benefits. Therefore, with such grievances, they have filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to release monthly pension, full amount of gratuity, leave encashment benefits, commutation of pension and the group insurance benefit with interest for such delayed payment. [4] In WP(C) No.448 of 2025, there are 28 petitioners, all were also employees under TTAADC and have already gone on retirement on different dates during the year 2024 and 2025. Their grievances are also similar like the petitioners of WP(C) No.447 of 2025. Therefore, they have also filed the writ petition with similar prayers like above said petitioners.

[5] In WP(C) No.452 of 2025, also there are 8 petitioners who similarly went on retirement during the year 2024 and 2025 as employees of TTAADC. They also carry similar grievances like petitioners of other two writ petitions.

[6] Learned counsel, Mr. Bhaskar Debbarma, representing the TTAADC, who are primarily responsible for making such payments, submits that only due to financial constraints, the TTAADC authority could not provide them such benefits, as requisite fund was not released by the State Government.

[7] Mr. Debbarma, learned counsel also submits that three separate interim applications are filed in the above said writ petitions by TTAADC for adding the State of Tripura as a party, on the ground that the source of funds of the TTAADC is from the State Government and due to the delayed release of the funds, they have not been able to make the payments, and therefore State of Tripura may be added as party in these proceedings. So far such prayer is concerned, it is an internal arrangement of money flow between the State Government and the TTAADC, but the petitioners have no concern with the same. The TTAADC being the employer of the petitioners has their primary responsibility to make the payment and it is for them to gather the funds from its known sources, following the due procedure. Therefore, the State Government is not required to be heard in these proceedings. Accordingly, all these I.A. petitions are rejected.

[8] Both sides submit that during the pendency of these writ petitions, the pension has been released in favour of all the petitioners, but the amounts payable towards gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension and the group insurance scheme are yet to be released.

[9] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel also prays for granting of interest for delayed payment on the arrears of pension amount and on other amounts payable on other counts as indicated above. Both the learned counsel, however, agree that all the three writ petitions are covered by the decision of this Court passed in Sri Rati Ranjan Debbarma & Ors. vs. Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC) & Ors., WP(C) No.380 of 2025, decided on 28.11.2025, except with the distinction that, in that case, after the filing of the writ petition, all the aforesaid benefits were released except the benefits under the Group Insurance scheme and the interest for delayed payment. However, in the present case, except pension nothing has been released. Both the learned counsel also submit that all the three writ petitions may be disposed of in the similar terms like said WP(C) No.380 of 2025, with necessary modifications regarding the payment on other counts as indicated above.

[10] This Court has considered the submissions of both sides and also perused the materials placed in the record. It is undisputed that all the petitioners of above said three cases were employees under TTAADC and they all are entitled to get all pensionary benefits, including benefits under gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance scheme and also the commutation of pension. The only plea of TTAADC is that due to shortage of funds to be released by the State Government, they could not discharge their own responsibility by providing those benefits to their employees.

[11] Mr. Debbarma, learned counsel further submits that the payment of the Group Insurance policy is required to be made not by them but by Life Insurance Corporation of India (LICI). However, such a plea has not been taken in the counter affidavit, nor the LICI has been made party in these writ petitions at the instance of said respondents.

[12] Law is settled since long that post-retiral benefits like gratuity and leave encashment etc., are not reward to be paid to an employee on his retirement at the grace of his employer. These are valuable rights accrued by an employee at the cost of his hard and sincere labour rendered during his service career. Therefore, it is obligatory for the employer to make such payment at the earliest possible manner in accordance with the relevant rules. In any delay caused in the disbursement of the same warrants imposition of interest thereupon. Relevantly, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Dhirendra Pal Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 49, may be referred wherein at paragraph No.9 it was observed the pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on the retirement but are valuable rights in their hands, and any culpable delay in such disbursement must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest.

[13] Mr. Barman, learned senior counsel also relies on another decision of the Supreme Court in a case of S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 3 SCC 44, wherein at paragraph No.14, while dealing with the aspect of granting interest on such delayed payment of retiral benefits, the Apex Court held as under:

                  “14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well-founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of “bounty” is, in our opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents.”

[14] In view of above discussions, it is held that the respondents No.1 to 12 in all the three cases are under legal responsibility to make the payment of benefits of gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension and Group Insurance along with interest thereon for such delayed payment and also interest on the arrears of pension. Consequently, the above said respondents No.1 to 12 are directed to make payment of the benefits of gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension and Group Insurance to all the petitioners along with interest @ 7% per annum on the aforesaid amounts and also on arrear pension computing from the period after 30 days of their respective date of retirement till payment is made. Such payment should be made within 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

[15] Learned senior counsel submits that few of the petitioners are in urgent need of money for treatment, marriage purpose etc., and therefore, their payments may be made on urgent basis. Considering above said submissions, the above said respondents are also directed to prioritise the payment of aforesaid benefits to those persons who are in urgent need of money for any cogent and reasonable grounds, if on their approach to the respondents, the respondents are satisfied about existence of such urgency. Their payments may be made within 2(two) months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

With such observations and directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.