Sl.19 02.04.2025 Court No.2 BP Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side WPA 655 of 2025 Maneka Roy & Ors. Vs. Cooch Behar Zilla Regulated Marked Committee & Ors. Mr. Sanjay Mazoomder Ms. Sukanya Adhikary ..for the petitioners Mr. Nabankur Paul Mr. Kumar Shantanu ..for the State Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. In spite of notice, the Zilla Regulated Market Committee is not represented. The petitioners’ claim that their husbands were Group-C employees at Cooch Behar Zilla Regulated Market Committee. It is the specific case of the petitioners that their respective husbands retired from the service on superannuation during the years 2016 – 2018. The petitioners’ claim that by virtue of a notification bearing memorandum dated January 28, 2021 issued by the West Bengal State Agricultural Marketing Board, the Chief Executive Officer was pleased to extend the benefit of revision of pay and allowances in view of 6th Pay Commission to the regular 2 employees of different Regulated Market Committees/Zilla Regulated Market Committees in terms of sub-section 4 of Section 14 of the West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972 read with Rule 27 of the West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1982 and in terms of the said notification the ceiling of the gratuity has been enhanced to Rs. 12,00,000/- with effect from 1st January, 2016. The petitioners’ claim that since their respective husbands retired after 1st January, 2016 the petitioners are entitled to enhanced gratuity as per the said memorandum. The petitioners submitted representations before the various authorities including the Secretary, Cooch Behar Zilla Regulated Market Committee by a letter dated 8th February, 2024 claiming release of enhanced gratuity. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said authority has not communicated its decision with regard to the prayer of the petitioners claiming enhanced gratuity. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners that no certificate has also been issued by the employer with regard to the enhanced gratuity. 3 Learned advocate for the State submits that since the petitioners are raising a dispute as to the amount of gratuity payable they have to approach the Controlling Authority with such prayer and if such prayer is made the Controlling Authority shall decide such dispute after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the employee and the employer. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. After going through the averments made in the writ petition and the claim made in the writ petition this Court finds that the petitioners have made a representation before their employer claiming enhanced gratuity in terms of a notification. Section 7(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 states that a person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorized, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed, for payment of such gratuity. Sub-section 2 of Section 7 says that as soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer shall, whether an application referred to in sub-section (1) has been made or not, determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined. 4 The petitioners have applied before the employers with an application stating that they are eligible for enhanced gratuity. In view of such a representation being made the employer is under a statutory obligation under Section 7(2) of the 1972 Act to determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined. Mr. Paul, learned advocate appearing for the State submits that an application before the employer has to be made in a prescribed form. The petitioners are the widows of the retired employees. They have submitted their representations before the employer. In the event the employer is of the view that an application in a prescribed format is necessary, the employer was under an obligation to intimate such fact to the petitioners. It does not appear that the employer has taken a stand that the prayer for enhanced gratuity is to be made in the prescribed format. However, since the petitioners have submitted a representation, this Court is of the considered view that the employer is duty bound to consider such prayer and to take a decision in accordance with law instead of taking a hypertechnical stand that such prayer has to be submitted in a prescribed format. 5 Without entering into the merits of the claim made by the petitioners, WPA 655 of 2025 is disposed of by requesting the Secretary, Cooch Behar Zilla Regulated Market Committee being the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 8th February, 2024 and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioners. The reasoned order shall be communicated to the petitioners immediately thereafter. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible but positively within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of this order along with the copy of the representation dated 8th February, 2024. If the said respondent is of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to enhanced gratuity, consequential steps shall be taken by the said respondent. No order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)