1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.797 of 2007 Shri Ashok Nilkanth Subhedar. .. .. Petitioner v/s. Pune District Central Sahakari Bank Ltd. & ors. .. .. .. Respondents Mr.A.P. Kulkarni for petitioner. Mr.V.B.Tapkir for respondent No.1. Mr.Suresh Kumar for respondent No.5. ------ CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. Dated : 8th January 2008 P.C. : 1.The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.9.2006 passed by the 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority and the order dated 15.4.2004 passed by the 3rd respondent- Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner has prayed that the 1st respondent may be directed to pay the petitioner the full gratuity payable to him as per the revised scheme. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled in law to 18% interest from the date of entitlement and heavy costs as penalty for the delay in payment. 2 2.We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. Admittedly, the petitioner has retired on 31.10.1996. The petitioner chose to file an application under Section 10 (1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on State Government Resolution dated 15th November 1999. In our opinion, since the petitioner has filed an application under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he cannot draw support from any of the State Government Resolutions. Besides, this point was never raised earlier. 3.Learned Counsel submitted that if the State Government Resolution is held not applicable, this court may consider the fact that the 1st respondent-bank should grant him benefit of LIC Group Gratuity Scheme. It is not possible for us to accept this submission also. The 2nd respondent- Appellate Authority in its order has observed that the said Scheme was made applicable to the 1st respondent-bank on 1.4.1997 and admittedly, the petitioner has retired on 31.10.1996. Therefore, he cannot get advantage of the said scheme. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the impugned orders. The petition cannot be entertained and is, therefore, dismissed. (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)