2026:THC:680-DB HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WA No.9 of 2026 1. The State of Tripura to be represented by the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, west Tripura, PIN-799010 2. The Director, Department of Agriculture, Government of Tripura, Krishi Bhavan, Agartala, P.O. Agartala, PIN-799001 3. The Managing Director, Tripura Horticulture Corporation Ltd. (A Govt. undertaking), R.C.D.F Complex, P.O. Arundhutinagar, West Tripura, PIN- 799003 4. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN- 799010 .........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Pabindra Tripura, aged 62 years, S/o Lt. Rira Mohan Tripura, R/o Sakbari, Satchand, Sabroom, South Tripura, PIN-799141 2. Sri Kalpa Ranjan Chakma, aged 62 years, S/o Lt. Biraj Mohan Chakma, R/o Geja Charra, P.O. Durga Charra, Dhalai, Tripura, PIN-799273 .........Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. G.A. For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate, Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate, Ms. Aradhita Debbarma, Advocate. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Order 20/05/2026 Heard Mr. Dipankar Sarma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants-State and Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by learned counsel Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee for the respondents-petitioners. 2. This Appeal is preferred challenging the common judgment dt.09.04.2025 in WP(C) No.772/2024 and batch. 2026:THC:680-DB 3. In the instant case, both the respondents were employees of the Tripura Horticulture Corporation Limited. 4. The respondents had made a claim for financial benefits including leave encashment. 5. The appellants had opposed the said claim on the ground that there is no such service rule prescribing grant of benefit of leave encashment to the employees on superannuation. 6. It was contended by the appellants that the Managing Director of the Corporation had not taken any arbitrary or discriminatory action against the respective respondents because the Governing Body of the Corporation had not adopted any Rules on payment of gratuity and leave encashment to the employees on superannuation, and there is no provision either in the Memorandum of Association (MoA) or in the Articles of Association (AoA) of the Corporation as well. 7. Reference is also made to resolution of the meeting of the Board of Directors dt.16.07.2024 that benefit of leave encashment to the employees could not be given on superannuation. 8. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, relied on the judgment dt.26.04.2024 in WP(C) No.489/2023 and batch. 9. Challenging the said judgment, this Appeal has been filed. 10. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants- State contends that the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge pertains to the Tripura Road Transport Corporation, and not to the Tripura Horticulture Corporation Limited, and the learned Single Judge erred in placing reliance on the said judgment and granting relief to the respondents. Page 3 of 4 2026:THC:680-DB 11. This Court specifically directed the counsel for the appellants vide Order dt.18.05.2026 to produce the Rule/Board Resolution followed by the said Corporation for grant of different types of leave such as Casual Leave, Earned Leave, Sick Leave, etc., which its employees are permitted to avail. 12. The appellants have produced a letter dt.19.05.2026 issued by the Managing Director of the said Corporation stating that though the Corporation has not framed any separate Service Rules with regard to the above subject matter, in practice, matters relating to Casual Leave, Earned Leave and other leave matters are being dealt with following the relevant Rules and procedures as followed by the Government of Tripura from time to time. 13. The applicable Rules relating to grant of leave being followed by the State Government, are called the Tripura State Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1986. 14. These Rules contemplate the type of leave which an employee is entitled to and includes Casual Leave, Earned Leave, Half Pay Leave, Extraordinary Leave, etc. 15. Rule 35(2)(a) specifically deals with encashment of leave in respect of employees who retired from service, and states as under: “35. ... (2) (a) Where a Government servant retires on attaining the normal age prescribed for retirement under the terms and conditions governing his service, the authority competent to grant leave shall suo motu issue an order granting cash equivalent of leave salary for earned leave, if any, at the credit of the Government servant on the date of his retirement subject to a maximum of [300] days.” 2026:THC:680-DB 16. In view of the said provision and the practice of the Corporation in following the said Rules containing the above Rule, it is not open to the Corporation to contend that the respondents are not entitled to be paid benefit of leave encashment on their superannuation from the said Corporation. 17. Therefore we do not find any merit in the Appeal, and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 18. The benefit of leave encashment shall be paid to the respondents with an interest at 6% per annum from the date of their superannuation till the date of payment. 19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (BISWAJIT PALIT, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ) Pijush/ PIJUSH KANTI NAG Digitally signed by PIJUSH KANTI NAG Date: 2026.05.21 14:45:06 +05'30'