JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-TRTC, the respondents in the writ petition. Also heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, writ petitioner. For convenience, the parties are referred to here-in-below according to their original status in the writ petition. 2. The respondents-TRTC have preferred the present appeal challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 20.02.2020, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court had passed an order directing the respondent-TRTC to release the gratuity payable to the writ-petitioner at the rate of Rs. 20,00,000/- along with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum after completion of 1 (one) month from the date of retirement till actual payment. 3. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned GA has submitted that the respondents-TRTC have paid gratuity to the writ-petitioner considering the ceiling limit at Rs. 10,00,000/-. During his argument, learned GA has relied upon Section 4-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 4. We are at a loss to understand as to how Section 4-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act will be applicable in case of the writ-petitioner or as to how the respondents-TRTC are relying upon Section 4-A of the said act. To rely upon Section 4-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, TRTC being an establishment of the State Government has to bring all its employees under the coverage of insurance policy. Each and every employees of this establishment is to be insured and liability absolutely lies upon the Corporation to bring its employees under the umbrella of insurance policy. 5. In the instant case, the respondents-corporation have not brought their employees under the umbrella of the insurance policy. They did not buy any policy from the Life Insurance Corporation of India as contemplated under Section 4-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. As such, according to us, Section 4-A has no application in deciding the instant writ petition as well as the appeal before us. It is an admitted position that none of the employees have been brought under the Insurance coverage by the corporation. Hence, we repel the submissions of learned GA on this point. 6. As such, according to us, Section 4-A has no application in deciding the instant writ petition as well as the appeal before us. It is an admitted position that none of the employees have been brought under the Insurance coverage by the corporation. Hence, we repel the submissions of learned GA on this point. 6. Next, we have to decide whether the TRTC, being an establishment of the State Government is liable to pay gratuity considering the upper ceiling limit as enhanced by the Central Government vide notification dated 29.03.2018. 7. This issue has already been settled by this Court in a series of decisions. Learned Single Judge while deciding a writ petition involving similar question of law relied upon the judgment of Bhupati Debnath v. The State of Tripura and Ors [WP(C) No. 1054/2019, decided on 13th February, 2020] and had observed thus: '[5] Both these issues came up for consideration in two recent judgments passed by this Court. In case of Sri Bhupati Debnath v. The State of Tripura and Others: W.P. (c) No. 1054/2019 (decided on 13th February, 2020) under somewhat similar circumstances it was held and observed as under: '10. It can thus be seen that insofar as the payment of gratuity, its computation and the ceiling up to which such amount can be paid as referred to in Section 4 of the said Act, the term 'appropriate Government' has no bearing. This distinction is also apparent from the statement of objects and reasons which provides that for the purpose of uniformity, the Central Act was envisaged. At the same time, appropriate Government is for the purpose of administering the Act. The ceiling limit for payment of gratuity is provided in sub-section (3) of Section 4. Previously, such ceilings were contained in the sub-section itself. Pursuant to amendment by virtue of Act 12 of 2018 the power to prescribe such ceiling has been vested in the Central Government to be exercised by issuing notification in this regard. The ceiling limit for payment of gratuity is provided in sub-section (3) of Section 4. Previously, such ceilings were contained in the sub-section itself. Pursuant to amendment by virtue of Act 12 of 2018 the power to prescribe such ceiling has been vested in the Central Government to be exercised by issuing notification in this regard. It is in exercise of such delegated powers of legislation that the Central Government has issued a notification dated 29.03.2018 which reads as under: 'S.O. 1420 (E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), the Central Government hereby specifies that the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under the said Act shall not exceed twenty lakh rupees.' 11. This revised ceiling thus would apply to all establishments irrespective of whether they are controlled or governed by the State or the Central Government as the appropriate Government. The stand of the respondents, therefore, that unless and until such revised ceiling of payment of gratuity is adopted by the State Government, the employees of the said corporation cannot claim benefit of such revised limit cannot be accepted. Revised ceiling limit of Rs.20,00,000 (rupees twenty lakhs) would be applicable to the petitioner. 12. The corporation cannot cite the reason of financial constraints indefinitely for paying post retiral benefits of its employees. The petitioner has put in more than 29 years of service. His service is not governed by the pension scheme. After his retirement, therefore, he would have only savings in the form of gratuity, provident fund accumulated in his account and leave encashment, if any, to fall back upon in his old age. Such amount must, therefore, be paid over to him as soon as possible. 13. Under the circumstances, petition is disposed of with following directions: (i) As provided earlier, the petitioner shall apply to the respondent No. 2 stating his calculation of payable gratuity. Such amount must, therefore, be paid over to him as soon as possible. 13. Under the circumstances, petition is disposed of with following directions: (i) As provided earlier, the petitioner shall apply to the respondent No. 2 stating his calculation of payable gratuity. The respondent No. 2 shall examine the petitioner's calculation and convey to him if any gratuity remains still payable; (ii) While calculating such gratuity, revised limit of Rs.20,00,000 (rupees twenty lakhs) shall be applicable; (iii) If there is any shortfall in payment of gratuity, the same shall be paid within a period of 4(four) months from today with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from one month after the date of superannuation till actual payments; (iv) The remaining amount of leave encashment shall be released within a period of 4(four) months from today. The entire leave encashment payment shall carry simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from one month after the date of retirement till actual payments; (v) The gratuity already paid shall also carry simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from one month after the date of retirement till actual payments.' 8. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge relied upon the case of Mamata Singha Roy v. The State of Tripura and Anr [WP(C) No. 1057/2019, decided on 13th February, 2020] and held thus: '[6] In case of Smt. Mamata Singha Roy v. The State of Tripura and another: W.P(c) No. 1057/2019 (decided on 13th February, 2020) in the context of the said memorandum dated 15.09.2016 it was further observed as under: '8. Under the office memorandum dated 15.09.2016 the Government correctly clarified this position and required all PSUs/Autonomous Bodies/Societies/Boards/Corporations under different departments to make arrangements to pay the amount of gratuity as per the said revised limit. In the last paragraph, however, it has been stated as under: 'The payment of Gratuity Act 1972 should not be extended without prior concurrence of the Finance under any circumstances. This direction has been given by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura vide No. -F.29(9)- Fin(G)/2004 dated 16th August 2011.' 9. This portion cannot nullify the earlier clarification of all PSUs/Autonomous Bodies/Societies etc. under the department of the State Government to pay gratuity as per the revised limit under the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Act No. 15 of 2010). Firstly, no directive not to pay gratuity as per the statutory provision, can be made by executive instructions. This portion cannot nullify the earlier clarification of all PSUs/Autonomous Bodies/Societies etc. under the department of the State Government to pay gratuity as per the revised limit under the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Act No. 15 of 2010). Firstly, no directive not to pay gratuity as per the statutory provision, can be made by executive instructions. Secondly, one possible meaning of this clarification is that when an organisation is extending the benefit of Payment of Gratuity Act, concurrence of the Finance Department will be needed. In either case, this last paragraph of the said office memorandum cannot govern the present case as per the correct legal position emerging from this statute. 10. Thus, when the legislature amended the said Act by Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Act No. 15 of 2010) and revised the ceiling of gratuity from Rs.3,50,000 (three lakhs fifty thousand) to Rs.10,00,000 (rupees ten lakhs), the petitioner was governed by such provision. The ceiling of gratuity payable was thus raised to Rs.10,00,000 (rupees ten lakhs). On the date of retirement this provision was applicable. The act of the respondent No. 2 to restrict her gratuity to Rs.4,00,000 (rupees four lakhs) against the computed gratuity of Rs.6,35,754 was incorrect. 11. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the remaining amount of gratuity of Rs.2,35,754 by applying the revised limit. This payment shall be made along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from one month after the date of retirement till actual payments. Directions to be carried out within 4(four) months from today.' 9. Placing reliance upon those two decisions, learned Single Judge had passed the following directions upon the respondents-TRTC: '[7] In view of the above discussion, respondents are directed to release the remaining amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner which shall carry simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum after the completion of 1 (one) month from the date of retirement till actual payment. Payment shall be made within 3 (three) months from today.' 10. Payment shall be made within 3 (three) months from today.' 10. Furthermore, the said issue was also decided by a Division Bench of this Court (comprising of S. Talapatra, J and S.G. Chattopadhyay, J in an intra-court appeal in WA No. 185 of 2020) and held that all the corporations and other establishments under the State Government shall come within the purview of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as amended time to time by the Central Government. The relevant part of the said judgment may be reproduced here-in-below: 'Admittedly, the writ petitioner is not an employee of the Central Government or State Government but of a local body. As such the said exception as curved out while defining 'employee' cannot authorise Agartala Municipal Corporation (the appellant) to make their own rules which is in contrast to the provisions of Central Statute namely the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in as much as the Central Government has notified that local bodies having employees more than ten would be covered by the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.' 11. In view of this settled proposition of law, we are of the opinion that the writ-petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of gratuity at the enhanced rate of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and it is hereby affirmed and upheld. 12. The respondents-Corporation are directed to pay the remaining amount of gratuity at the enhanced rate of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the writ-petitioner within a period of 3 (three) months from today. 13. In terms of the above observations and directions, the instant writ appeal stands dismissed.