IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1933 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 08/12/2004 in WP NO : 19021 OF 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Nellore District Co.operative Central Bank Ltd., rep., by its General Manager, Nellore, Nellore District. ..... APPELLANT AND M.Penchalaiah, s/o Seshaiah, Nellore District Cooperative Central Bank, r/o 2-2-17/24, Laxminagar, Kovur Mandal, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.D.SETHURAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.SRIDHAR REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Appeal has been filed against the orders dated 8.12.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 19021 of 2003. Respondent herein filed Writ Petition declaring the action of the appellant-Bank in not paying the gratuity amount of Rs. 2,76,845/- though he retired on 30.6.2000 as Branch Manager in NDCC Bank as illegal. A learned Single Judge of this Court taking into consideration the principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in GENERAL MANAGER, ADILABAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED VS. K. RANGA RAO[1] and also following the decision of the Supreme Court in THE STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. A. N. GUPTA ETC[2] held that such benefit cannot be denied and accordingly, allowed the Writ Petition directing the appellant-Bank to pay the gratuity amount to the respondent-petitioner together with interest @ 4% within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent- Bank filed the present Writ Appeal. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the order under challenge. As seen from the order impugned, the learned Single Judge rightly held that benefit of gratuity cannot be denied to an employee and directed the Bank to pay the gratuity. It is well settled that unless there are any disciplinary proceedings pending against an employee, the payment of gratuity cannot be withheld. Under Section 4 of the Gratuity Act, gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years. Since no disciplinary proceedings as such are pending against the respondent, there is no justification in withholding the gratuity of the respondent. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Writ Appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. The appellant-bank is directed to pay the gratuity to the respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order together with permissible interest under the Payment of Gratuity Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 08.07.2009 KA Note: Furnish copy in four days. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies [1] 2002 (1) ALD 293 (DB) [2] AIR 1998 SC 159