1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2443 OF 2009 Govindrao Tukaram Deshmukh, Age-63 years, Occu:Nil, R/o-Ambekar Nagar, Sahakari Grah Nirman Sanstha, Asadulabad, Nanded, West side of Bhagyanagar, House No.1/13/795, Nanded. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Co-operative Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Nanded District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Head Office, Shaivaji Chowk, Nanded, Through its Managing Director, 3) The Administrator, The Nanded District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Shaivaji Chowk, Nanded, 4) The Manager, Account Section, The Nanded District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Shaivaji Chowk, Nanded ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri.A.V. Patil Advocate for Petitioner. Smt. R.K. Laddha, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri.D.N. Suryawanshi Advocate for Respondent No.4. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.U. CHANDWAL, JJ. DATE : 26TH NOVEMBER, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: NARESH H. PATIL, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioner was working with Respondent Nanded District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. He got retired on 31st May, 2005. The Petitioner was to be paid an amount towards the Gratuity which was to the tune of Rs.3,69,462/- (Rupees Three Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Two only). In short the grievance of the Petitioner is that before disbursing the amount of Gratuity to the Petitioner, the Respondent Bank deducted the amount of alleged loan which was shown due against his mother and son. The learned counsel Shri Patil, appearing for the Petitioner, placed reliance on Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Section 13 of the said 3 Act reads thus: "13. Protection of gratuity - No gratuity payable under this Act [and no gratuity payable to an employee employed in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop exempted under section 5] shall be liable to attachment in execution of any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal Court." 3. The authorities of the Respondent Bank could not point out any provisions of law under which they were authorized to deduct the amount of loan allegedly due against relatives of the Petitioner, from the Gratuity amount which the Petitioner was entitled to receive. In this view of the matter, we find that the Petitioner was entitled to receive the entire Gratuity amount in accordance with law. We are of the view that the Petitioner is entitled to receive the amount without deducting the amount of loan allegedly shown 4 to be due against the relatives of the Petitioner. The Petition is therefore, allowed to that extent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent Bank, on instructions from Shri Shinde, Assistant Manager (Legal), makes a statement that the amount of Gratuity would be disbursed to the Petitioner within eight weeks from today. The statement is accepted by us. We direct that the Respondent Bank shall disburse the amount of Gratuity to the Petitioner according to the statement made before this Court. 5. The learned counsel Shri Patil submits that amount of Gratuity has to be disbursed to the Petitioner with interest as he is entitled in law for the same. The Petitioner may file representation on this aspect with the Bank authorities. 6. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. No costs. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/NOV09/wp2443.09