Gauhati High Court
Review.Pet./138/2022 of ASSAM GOVERNMENT MARKETING CORPORATION LTD AND ANR Vs LONI BHAGAWATI on 16 June 2026
GAHC010175642022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./138/2022 ASSAM GOVERNMENT MARKETING CORPORATION LTD AND ANR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PRAGJYOTIKA BHAWAN, G.N.B ROAD, AMBARI, GUWAHATI 01, DIST KAMRUP M
GAHC010175642022
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./138/2022
ASSAM GOVERNMENT MARKETING CORPORATION LTD AND ANR
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PRAGJYOTIKA BHAWAN, G.N.B
ROAD, AMBARI, GUWAHATI 01, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.
PRAGJYOTIKA BHAWAN
G.N.B ROAD
AMBARI
GUWAHATI 01
DIST KAMRUP M ASSA
VERSUS
LONI BHAGAWATI
W/O SRI DIPAK BHAGAWATI, RESIDENT OF 18, JANAPATH HATIGAON, PS
HATIGOAN, GUWAHATI 781038, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAMARIA, MR. D DAS,MR A N SARMAH,MR. M ALI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P J SAIKIA, SR. ADV, MR. A K GUPTA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
17.06.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr.
A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the sole respondent/writ petitioner.
2. The review petitioner has prayed for review of the judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 passed in WP(C) 6258/2019, on the ground that the Assam Government Marketing Corporation Limited (AGMCL) had, vide it’s Resolution No.10 of the 238th Meeting of the Board of Directors, AGMCL held on 14.06.2019, agreed to raise the Gratuity payable to it’s employees from Rs.7.00 lakhs to Rs.10.00 lakhs, if the financial condition of the AGMCL improved in the coming years. The above, according to the AGMCL’s counsel implies that Gratuity amount payable to the employees of the AGMCL, which is a Corporation, is to be limited only to Rs.7.00 lakhs. On the other hand, this Court while disposing of WP(C) 6258/2019 had directed that the writ petitioner should be given the Gratuity amount of Rs.11,69,825/-, without having benefit of Resolution No.10 of the 238th Meeting of the Board of Directors, AGMCL, held on 14.06.2019.
3. The counsel for the review petitioner submits that the writ petitioner retired as a Deputy General Manager and was well aware that there was a cap for payment of Gratuity @ Rs. 7.00 lakhs and in fact, the writ petitioner had also recommended payment of Gratuity to other employees during his tenure, to the limit of Rs. 7.00 lakhs only. However, the said fact had not been brought to the notice of this Court at the time of disposal of WP(C) 6258/2019. The learned counsel thus submits that in view of the above special reason, the impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 should be reviewed and the said impugned judgment and order should be recalled. The learned counsel also submits that there should be a limit to the payment of Gratuity payable to the writ petitioner, in terms of Resolution No.10 of the 238th Meeting of the Board of Directors of the AGMCL held on 14.06.2019. Mr. R. Dhar submits that the Rs. 7.00 lakhs Gratuity has also been paid to the writ petitioner.
4. On the other hand, the counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to the Gratuity amount of Rs.11,69,825/- and as such, the impugned judgment and order should not be interfered with. The learned counsel also submits that when the Government servants in the Assam Government are entitled to the enhanced maximum limit of Rs. 10.00 lakhs for DCRG in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 12.07.2017, as provided in paragraph-8 of the writ petition, there is no justification for putting a cap on the Gratuity payable to the writ petitioner @ Rs. 7.00 lakhs.
5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. The extract of the Resolution No.10 in the 238th Meeting of the Board of Directors, AGMCL held on 14.06.2019 states as follows : “EXRACT OF THE RESOLUTION NO.10 OF THE 238TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AGMC LTD, HELD ON 14 JUNE, 2019.
ITEM NO. 10:ENHANCEMENT OF GRATUITY AS PER GRATUITY ACT FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE CORPORATION
The Managing Director informed the Board about the demand of its Corporation employees for raising the Gratuity from Rs.7.00 lakhs to
Rs.10.00 lakhs. The MD explained that due to bad financial position over the last few years, the Corporation was not in a position to enhance the gratuity for now. The Board members also agreed with the MD and further stated that, if the financial condition is improved in the coming years, the Board will recommend the matter for enhancement. However, the Board authorized MD to go through the rules of Gratuity Act.”
7. A reading of the above clearly shows that the maximum limit of Gratuity payable to the employees of the Corporation is only Rs. 7.00 lakhs. Further, as per the records that have been brought to the notice of the Court, the writ petitioner while working as Deputy General Manager had also recommended payment of Gratuity up to Rs. 7.00 lakhs only, in respect of Sri Narayan Ch. Kalita, retired Assistant Manager of the Corporation.
8. On considering the fact that the Board of Directors of the Corporation had already passed a resolution in the year 2019 that there would be a cap on the Gratuity payable to the retired employees @ Rs.7.00 lakhs, though the calculation of the Gratuity amount is to be done as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, this Court is of the view that a case for review of the impugned judgment and order has been made out. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 passed in WP(C) 6258/2019 is hereby recalled.
9. The review petition is allowed.
10. WP(C) 6258/2019 is restored to file.
11. Registry is directed to list the matter before the appropriate Bench.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant