JUDGMENT : Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to make the full and final payment of gratuity with interest @ 9% per annum to the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2019 till payment is made after adjusting lump sum amount of Rs.10,00,000/-already paid; (ii) Make the rules absolute; (iii) Call for records. (iv) Pass any further order/orders as this Hon’ble High Court considered fit and proper.” 2. Gratuity is not a bounty or a largess to be distributed by the State/employer at their own whims and fancies. It is a hard-earned right conferred by way of and under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The said Act was enacted with the object of providing for a scheme for payment of gratuity to the employees engaged under different establishments. 3. Under Section 2(s) of the Act, “wages” means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employments and which are paid or are payable to him in cash and includes dearness allowance but does not include any bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance. 4. Section 4 of the Act mandates disbursement of the amount of gratuity, payable to an employee, on his termination of employment which can be on account of superannuation; retirement; resignation; death; disablement due to accident or disease. However, the said Section itself prescribes certain limitations, enabling the employee entitled for such payment. 5. The Act itself prescribes the procedure for determination of the amount of gratuity which is so provided under Section 7 thereof. 6. It is a settled principle of law that gratuity cannot be withheld under any circumstance, other than those provided/ enumerated under the Act, and more specifically Section 4 thereof. 7. Now, in the instant case, petitioner herein has fully complied with the provisions of the said statute. In fact, his right and entitlement to the amount of gratuity/wages so quantified, minus the component of interest, is not in dispute. The said amount already stands determined by the respondent-organization under whose service the petitioner superannuated on 30.11.2018. 8. 7. Now, in the instant case, petitioner herein has fully complied with the provisions of the said statute. In fact, his right and entitlement to the amount of gratuity/wages so quantified, minus the component of interest, is not in dispute. The said amount already stands determined by the respondent-organization under whose service the petitioner superannuated on 30.11.2018. 8. The only stand taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit filed in the Registry of the Court, copy whereof is handed over in Court, is financial inability, though it stands clarified that part of such amount, i.e. Rs. 10,00,000 (rupees ten lakh) stands disbursed to the petitioner and the remaining amount would be disbursed only after certain financial arrangement is made with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), who is the Fund Manager. 9. The employer states that the company is incurring heavy loss which has exceeded its authorized capital and perhaps “deserves liquidation”. It is further pleaded that “it is now running under the mercy of the Government”. Well, there is nothing on record to establish such plea. 10. Be that as it may, thus far, company/employer has not initiated any steps for liquidation and financial hardship cannot be a ground to withhold emoluments of an employee, who has put in his heart, soul, youth and sweat for successful running of the company. 11. It is not that the company has taken any measures controlling expenditure of its officers. All high ranking officers are receiving their salary in accordance with law. Also they are continuing to enjoy all perks and at the cost of an honest employee who stands deprived of his rightful and legitimate dues. 12. This Court finds no reason as to why statutory funds of an employee who had put in his heart, soul and youth in the development of the company should not expeditiously get the amount, to which he is otherwise legally entitled to, along with interest as per statute. 13. Under these circumstances, petition is disposed of with a direction to (i) the respondent No.1 namely, the State of Tripura, to be represented by the Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tripura; (ii) respondent No.2 namely, the Tripura Small Industries Corporation Ltd., (A Govt. 13. Under these circumstances, petition is disposed of with a direction to (i) the respondent No.1 namely, the State of Tripura, to be represented by the Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tripura; (ii) respondent No.2 namely, the Tripura Small Industries Corporation Ltd., (A Govt. of Tripura Undertaking), to be represented by the Managing Director, The Tripura Small Industries Corporation Ltd.; and (iii) respondent No.3 namely, the Managing Director, The Tripura Small Industries Corporation Ltd., to positively disburse the remaining amount of gratuity, which the petitioner is entitled to, as already stands determined, within a period of 4(four) weeks from today. Needless to add, petitioner shall be entitled to all statutory interest in accordance with law. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.