Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, ... vs The Appellate Authority on 16 October, 2020

Author:
Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench:
Pushpendra Singh Bhati

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7359/2019

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Jodhpur, Through Its
Chairman, Head Office Tulsi Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Appellate Authority, Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
1972 And The Deputy Chief Labor Commissioner
(Central), Ajmer.
2. Controlling Authority Under, Under Payment Of Gratuity
Act, 1972 And Assistant Labor Commissioner (Central),
Ajmer (Raj.).
3. Shri Lokendra Singh Shaktawat S/o Shri Narendra Singh,
House No. C-20/21, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2455/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2456/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2457/2019
Rajajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Through Its Chairman,
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2459/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(2 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2461/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2463/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3130/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank,
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Graturity Act 1972
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3403/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972
And The Deputy Chief Labor Commissioner
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3408/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972
And The Deputy Chief Labor Commissioner
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3419/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3420/2019

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(3 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3421/2019
Raj. Marudhara Gramin Bank Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
Appl. Autho.
Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
. 1972
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3425/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4791/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4792/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4822/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4849/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(4 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4852/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4856/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972
And The Deputy Chief Labor Commissioner
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4875/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972
And The Deputy Chief Labor Commissioner
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4877/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972
And The Deputy Chief Labor Commissioner
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7368/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7369/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank,
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7463/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(5 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7611/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7625/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10379/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gamin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10380/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gamin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10385/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gamin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10386/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gamin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10388/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gamin Bank

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(6 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10437/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10438/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10443/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10480/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10539/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10567/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10569/2019

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(7 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11972/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Bagtawar Ram
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13014/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7562/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7643/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7644/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7645/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(8 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

The Appellate Authority
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7860/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10422/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11256/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11259/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11264/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11317/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(9 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11325/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11396/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12030/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12031/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12121/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1416/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(10 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3422/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4788/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4794/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4857/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972
and the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4859/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7561/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(11 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7613/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7647/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7650/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7704/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7763/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7754/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(12 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7755/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7892/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7870/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7897/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7908/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9965/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(13 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10144/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10252/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10299/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10367/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10421/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10441/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10476/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(14 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10477/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10482/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10537/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10538/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10676/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10680/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(15 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10683/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10753/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10756/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10758/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11224/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11225/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(16 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11252/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11253/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11267/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11268/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11314/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11323/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(17 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11927/2019
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8574/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajendra Singh Rathore
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8702/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Pukh Raj Bharti
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8708/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajendra Kumar Nahar
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8769/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Bheru Pal Singh
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8575/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Prem Singh Shekhawat
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(18 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8600/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Shyam Lal Singh Rajput
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8661/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Navneet Sharma
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8686/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Mangi Lal Seervi
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8688/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Shyam Sunder Sharma
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8689/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Dayaram Hambad
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8690/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Dalpat Khamesra
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(19 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8692/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Chiranji Lal Pareek
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8766/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Champak Lal Dave
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8767/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Anand Singh Charan
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8424/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Kishan Singh Khiriya
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8431/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Sudhir Kumar Juneja
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8432/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Dhirendra Singh Solanki
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(20 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8434/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Panna Lal Chouhan
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8520/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Pema Ram Vishnoi
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8521/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Shiv Shanker Das
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8540/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Suresh Bala Sharma
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8725/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Likhma Ram Saran
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8727/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Surya Prasad Sharma
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(21 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8426/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Kheem Singh Rathore
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8685/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Manak Chand Sisodiya
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8623/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Deva Ram Sarel
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8631/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Jabbar Singh Shekhawat
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8640/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Bhanwar Lal Sharma
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8644/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Om Prakash Thakur
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(22 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8889/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Prabhu Shanker Pareek
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8584/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Jawana Ram Godara
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8728/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Om Prakash Pande
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8898/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Ram Vilas Tanwar
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9011/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Chunnilal Parihar
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9010/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Ganesh Ram Choyal
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(23 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9021/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Renuka Bhardwaj
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9023/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Shiv Kumar Vyas
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9047/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Thana Ram Parihar
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9096/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Pratap Singh Choudhary
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9100/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Arun Kumar Babel
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9101/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Himta Ram Suthar
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(24 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9102/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Pawan Kumar Dhannawat
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9103/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Ganesh Singh Rathore
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9104/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Prem Chand Purohit
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9105/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Lokesh Kumar Joshi
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9106/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Sharafat Ali Balvi
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9107/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Narendra Singh Dewal
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(25 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9108/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Dinesh Kumar Bhandari
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9109/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Tara Chand Prajapat
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9110/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Nena Ram Siyak
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9111/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Praveen Singh Sisodiya
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9112/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Manohar Lal Lodha
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9113/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Virendra Kumar Nanawati
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(26 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9114/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Deep Singh Chouhan
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9116/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Kanhaiya Lal Swarnkar
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9118/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Rukhsana Banno Samma
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9120/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Omkar Singh Bhati
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9121/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Shiv Prasad Sharma
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9122/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Prasan Lal Sharma
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(27 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9123/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Ajay Kumar Vagarecha
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9125/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Subhash Chandra Solanki
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9127/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Dilip Kumar Arora
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9138/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Pukhraj Agarwal
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9140/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Bhagwati Lal Ladha
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9137/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Kunna Ram Choudahry
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(28 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9139/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Giriraj Singh Rathore
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9143/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Sanwar Lal Gaur
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9144/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Azad Khan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9145/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Bhikam Chand Jhuria
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9146/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Lalit Devi Sharma
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9147/2020
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
----Petitioner
Versus
Chandan Lal Bhanwara
----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Charan with Mr. Rahul
Bhati
Dr. Mahendra Singh Kachhawa with
Mr. Jitendra Singh

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)
(29 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

For Respondent(s) : Mr. SP Sharma
Mr. BP Bohra
Mr. Deelip Kawadia a/w Ms. Divya
Sharma
Mr. NS Charan
Ms. Pintu Pareek

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

16/10/2020

1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abandon caution is

being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

2. All these writ petitions involve common questions of law

and facts and arise out of two consecutive orders passed by the

Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority wherein it has

been held that the beneficial definition of pay ought to be

considered for computing enhanced gratuity to the officers while

interpreting the welfare legislation of gratuity and hence, the

same are decided together by this common judgment.

3. The petitioner is a regional rural bank and has preferred

these writ petitions claiming identical relief. The relief prayed for in

the lead case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7359/2019 reads as

under :-

a) The impugned order dated 26.02.2019(Annex.1) may
kindly be quashed and set aside and the prayer of the
appellant/petitioner in the appeal may kindly be allowed,
and

b) The respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to return the
deposited amount of Rs.11,15,759/-jj in compliance of the
statutory provisions, while filing the appeal with due
interest, and

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(30 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

c) Any other writ order or direction which you Lordship may
deem jut and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case, may also kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner
and the cost may be directed to be awarded in favour of
the petitioner.

4. The brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are

that all these writ petitions relate to the dispute of computation of

gratuity of the retired Bank Officers. The petitioner bank is a

Regional Rural Bank which has been constituted by amalgamation

of Marudhara Gramin Bank and Mewar Anchalik Gramin Bank on

01.04.2014. The retired Bank Officers-private respondents filed

their respective applications before the Controlling Authority under

the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
claiming the differential amount

of gratuity with interest with effect from 01.12.2017 based on the

basic + dearness allowance + PQP + FPP components of the last

pay drawn for the calculation of amount of gratuity payable to

such officers. The petitioner-Bank vehemently objected their

applications but the same were allowed and the petitioner-Bank

was directed to pay the additional amount of gratuity along with

simple interest at the rate of 10% with effect from 01.12.2017 till

the date of payment made by the petitioner-Bank. The petitioner

being aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority filed

appeals under
Section 7
Sub-
Section 7
of the Payment of Gratuity

Act 1972, before the Appellate Authority under the
Payment of

Gratuity Act, 1972
and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner

(Central), Ajmer. The petitioner being under a legal obligation

deposited the difference of the amount to the Government before

filing the appeals. The Appellate Authority partly allowed the

appeals with a direction to pay lesser amount along with simple

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(31 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

interest at the rate of 10% per month with effect from 01.12.2017

only on the ground of the ratio of the monthly addition of gratuity

after completion of 30 years while upholding the broader issue laid

down by the Controlling Authority.

The bank officers have also made cross-objections

against the Appellate Authority's order in certain writ petitions

whereby the calculations as per Clause 72(3) of the regulation

have been made and reduced by the Appellate Authority and

seeking of counting 30 days + 15 days i.e. one and a half months'

salary for the basic computation.

5.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner bank Mr. Suresh

Charan and Dr. Mahendra Singh Kachhawa framed their arguments

raising five core issues which read as follows:-

" a. Whether the order dated 02.05.2018 passed by the
Controlling Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act

1972, is without competence and beyond jurisdiction?

b. If the Controlling Authority under the
Payment of
Gratuity Act
1972, is having the legal competence to
entertain the application under
Section 7(4)(b)
filed by the
respondent No.3 without any dispute being raised under

Section 7(4)(a)
of the Act of 1972 with in reasonable time?

c. If the respondent No.2 has any jurisdiction to entertain
any claim of Gratuity of more than Rs.10.00 Lacs the
maximum limit under the
Payment of Gratuity Act
1972?

d. If the competent authority has been entrusted with any
jurisdiction in interpreting the provisions of any other statute
or rules relating to Payment of Gratuity to the employee
under
Section 4(5)
of the Act of 1972?

e. If, the respondent No.3 has waived his right to raise
the dispute under
Section 7(4)(a)
within reasonable time,

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(32 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

when he has already accepted the amount of Rs.1005180
payable under the provision of the Act of 1972?"

5.2 In pursuance of the aforesaid legal issues raised,

learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions

with the help of the precedent law as applicable, in the ensuing

paragraphs.

5.3 All these petitions relate to the retired bank officers

who have voluntarily accepted the batter and beneficial amount of

gratuity calculated as per the provision of payment of
Gratuity Act

1972 and Service Regulation 2010, without any dispute being

raised under
section 7(4)(a)
of the Act of 1972. The retired bank

officer while accepting the amount of gratuity has not raised any

dispute within 90 days as prescribed under rule 10 of payment of

gratuity Rules, as contemplated under
section 7(4)(a)
of the Act of

1972. All the claims accept pertaining to writ petitions expect SB

CW No. 7359/2019 are submitted after the lapse of limitation

period. The claim applications before the controlling authority are

submitted after 06 months to about 09 years of accepting the

gratuity amount without any dispute i.e. after the lapse of

limitation. No application for condonation of delay was submitted

and the controlling authority suo moto has admitted and decided

the applications while as per -

(i) The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in SBCW
no.27013/2013 titled Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation VS The Dy. Labour Commissioner and anr.

decided on 01.08.2013 has held that the appellate authority
was not justified in condoning the in ordinate delay.

(ii) The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in mineral area
development - VS State of Bihar cited in 2001 (ILLJ) 1375
Jhark. has again propounded that the application offered no

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(33 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

explanation/reasons for seeking condonation for in ordinate
delay.

(iii) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has in case of Krishan
Kumar Kashyap VS the appellate Authority decided on
23.02.2015 has held that the provisions of limitation Act are
not applicable in case of matter relating to PG Act 1972 and
an appeal filed after 139 days was dismissed, while the
limitation period was 120 days.

5.4 The Appellate authority although has framed the issue

no.(a) on page no.4 and has also cited the judgment produced by

bank reported in 1989 (2) SCC 356 titled M/s. Rup Diamond and

Ors. VS Union of India and Ors. but has not accepted the plea of

the petitioner bank. The all citations considered are not applicable

to the cases before the Court as - (i) The facts are not akin to the

present dispute where the claim is raised after lapse of inordinate

delay and out of limitation. (ii) The cases cited relate to the

condonation based on the applications filed for condonation but in

present cases no application is submitted in any of the 105 cases,

so the condonation suo moto is not permissible.

5.5. The conclusion arrived by appellate authority is

erroneous, illegal and arbitrary where in the respondent appellate

authority has stated that starting point of gratuity will be from the

time when the employer disputes the liability, the inference drawn

is totally uncalled for and against the provisions of law, as laid

down under
section 7(4)(a)
of the Act of 1972 as well as the

provision of limitation laid down under rule 10 of the payment of

gratuity rules prescribing the limit from the date of acceptance or

raising of dispute about such calculation. The inference drawn by

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(34 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

the appellate authority that the employer cannot resist the claim

of payment of gratuity on the ground of limitation.

5.6 The controlling authority has no jurisdiction and

competence to decide the issue of interpretation relating to any

Act / Contract /Agreement other than the provisions relating to

the provisions of payment of
Gratuity Act
1972, while in this

matter the controlling and the appellate authority has gone

beyond the competence and jurisdiction as held under -

(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Allahabad Bank
and anr. VS All India Allahahad Bank Retired decided on
15.12.2009 has categorically held that "
The Act
nowhere
confers any jurisdiction upon the controlling authority to deal
with any issue under sub
section 5
of
section 4
as to
whether the terms of gratuity payable under any award or
agreement or contract is beneficial to employees than the
one provided for payment of gratuity under the Act. The
Courts order could not have conferred such jurisdiction upon
the controlling authority to decide any matter under sub
section (5) of
section 4
........... . The controlling authority
failed to appreciate that sub section (5) of
section 4
of the
Act, protect the right of an employee to receive better terms
of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract than
the benefits conferred under the Act."

(ii) The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of Thomos
Kurian VS Idukki District Cooperative Bank decided on
25.02.2003, has clearly held that - "The controlling
authority constituted under the
Gratuity Act
is incompetent
to consider the legality or propriety of Exhibit P-l circular as
he does not have any authority or jurisdiction to consider the
same. When the right to get he maximum amount of
gratuity under the
Gratuity Act
is not disputed by the bank,
the controlling authority has no jurisdiction in adjudicating
the dispute regarding the excess amount paid to the
employee. As the dispute is relating to the payment of an

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(35 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

amount in excess of the amount prescribe under sub section
(3) of
section 4
of the Gratuity Act and that being a dispute
between the employer and employee, it has to be
adjudicated by the arbitrator under
section 69
of the
Cooperative Act....... .The controlling authority cannot have
any jurisdiction in the matter, as the dispute relates to the
claim regarding the excess amount paid which is beyond the
purview of the
Gratuity Act
."

(iii) The controlling authority is appointed under
section 3
of
the Act of 1972 which makes it clear that the controlling
authority "who shall be responsible for administration
of his Act." makes it clear that he cannot go beyond the
provisions of the Act of 1972 while in the present matter the
respondent authorities have tried to make the interpretation
of the provisions of service regulations 2010 relating to the
petitioner bank which is not permissible. All the acts of the
respondent authorities are beyond competence and
jurisdiction.

5.7. The controlling authority is appointed under
section 3
of

the Act of 1972 which makes it clear that "who shall be

responsible for administration of this Act." (With pecuniary

jurisdiction prescribed).

Provision laid down under
section 4 (3)
of the Act of

1972 is as under: "The amount of gratuity payable to an

employee shall not exceed 10 Lacs Rupees."

The pecuniary jurisdiction of the controlling authority is

limited upto 10 lacs Rupees as prescribed under the Act 1972

while in all 105 cases the respondent authorities have decided the

applications demanding more than amount of Rupees 10 Lacs,

which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(36 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

authorities hence all the judgments are nullity in the eye of

law.

The Honlble Courts have categorically held that the

judgments passed beyond pecuniary jurisdiction are nullity, as

held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of

Basant Singh VS Tirloki Nath Lachhman Das.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Singh VS Chaman

Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340 has held that "A defect of

Jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is

in respect of subject of the action, strikes at the very authority of

the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured

even by consent of parties."

5.8. The respondent no.3 the retired bank officers have

voluntarily accepted the amount of gratuity without any dispute

being raised under
section 7 (4) (a)
of the Act of 1972 within

reasonable or within limitation period. Respondent no. 3 has

waived his right by his non action in reasonable time to raise the

dispute and is not at liberty to blow hot and cold simultaneously.

The Hon'ble Courts have categorically propounded that once the

right is waived then cannot claim such right.

5.9. The Controlling Authority in its judgment dated

02.05.2018 has passed the direction for payment of gratuity

calculated on Page No. 13 of the above judgment where the

determination of gratuity is made on the basis of "last wages

drawn." The important lines are reproduced as under -

"Therefore applicant is entitled to receive the gratuity as per

service regulation by taking the last wages into consideration."

In detailing the facts at point no. 4 at page no. 13 the last wages

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(37 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

drawn is calculated - a) Basic Pay, b) Dearness Allowance, c) FPP,

d) PQP, in making the total of the last drawn wages.

The service regulations 2010 do not have any word

"wages" used and defined in these regulations, makes it clear

that the word wages is being imported from the payment of

Gratuity Act
1972.

In determination of gratuity on page no. 13 the

controlling authority has used the formula taken from the service

regulations 2010 and without using the amount of "pay" as

required under the proviso to the regulation 72 of the service

regulations 2010.

It makes crystal clear that the controlling

authority on page no. 13 of its judgment has segregated the

provisions of the Act of 1972 and provision of service regulation

2010, which is not permissible in law.

(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Beed District Central VS
State of Maharastra and Ors. decided on 29.09.2006 has
clearly held that "We are, therefore, of the opinion that the
workman cannot opt for both the terms. Such a
construction would defeat the purpose for which sub section
(5) of
section 4
has been enacted".

The above judgment has also further held that "while
interpreting even a beneficent statute, like, payment of

Gratuity Act
, we are of the opinion that either contract has
to be given effect to or the statute. The provisions of the
Act envisage for one Scheme. It could not be segregated.
Sub section (5) of
section 4
of the 1972 Act does not
contemplate that the workmen would be at liberty to opt for
better terms of the contract, while keeping the option
opened in respect of part of statute. While reserving his
right to opt for the beneficent provision of the statute or

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(38 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

agreement, he has to opt for either of them, and not the
terms of not the best of terms of the statute as well as
those of the contract. He cannot have both. It such an
interpretation is given, the spirit of Act shall be lost."

5.10. That the petitioner bank has not delayed the payment

rather it calculated the amount of gratuity before retirement of the

concerned bank officer, with comparative calculation on the basis

of for formula prescribed under the provision of the Act 1972 as

well as the formula provided under the service regulations 2010.

The better and beneficial amount was agreed and accepted by the

respondent no.3, the retired bank officers. But the controlling as

well as appellate authority under the payment of
Gratuity Act
, by

segregation of the provision of Act and Regulation 2010, illegally

and without competence/jurisdiction has passed the impugned

orders which are not permissible in law.

5.11. That the payment of gratuity to the bank officers as per

the service regulations 2010 under regulation 72 provide for

calculation of the amount of the gratuity to the bank officers as

mention in proviso: "provided further that in respect of an officer

the gratuity is payable based on last pay drawn".

The pay is define under the regulation - "Pay means

the basic pay drawn per month by the officer or employee

in a pay scale including stagnation increment and any part

of emoluments which may specifically be classified as pay

under the regulations".

The regulations have provided for separate methods

and means of calculation of gratuity for the officers and

employees. The respondent no. 3 cannot claim the inclusion of

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(39 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

dearness allowance when the legislature, beyond ambiguity has

provided that only the last pay drawn shall be the basis of

calculation then all the judgments submitted by the respondents

including the Hontble MP High Court, and Hon'ble Calcutta High

Court, etc. are not considerable as in those judgments the

dearness allowance is illegally and beyond the scope of provision

of law has directed to be added with the pay for the payment of

gratuity to the retired officers.

The wrong and illegally orders when brought to the

knowledge of Hon'ble Court, are not binding and not to be

followed as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The counsel for the respondent no. 3, retired officers

have tried to misrepresent to the Hon'ble Court that the

judgment of the Hon'ble MP High Court was upheld by the

Hon'ble supreme court, while order dated 07.05.2019 has

dismissed the SLP of the Madhyanchal bank. The SLP rejected

cannot be taken as upholding the judgment of the division bench

of Hon'ble MP High Court.

That the language of the provisions laid down under

regulation 1972 of the service regulation 2010 Is unambiguous

and plain which cannot have two interpretations then the Hon'ble

Court should avoid following the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

MP High Court, and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, etc.

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench in

case of Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank VS Appellate Authority and

anr decided on 06.01.2020 in writ petition no. 8272/2018 and

8273/2018 has in detail examined the provisions of the PG Act

and the service regulations 2010 and has not followed the

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(40 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

judgment passed by the Hon'ble MP High Court and has

categorically held that the claim of the retired bank officers is not

permissible in law.

5.12. The Petitioner bank has submitted the judgments

passed in favour of the petitioner bank by the same appellate

authority at Ajmer in case of Chairman Marudhara Gramin Bank

(the then JTGB) VS Shri Manohar Lal Yadav was decided on

05.08.2014 and the claim of the retired bank officers on the same

analogy was disallowed. The petitioners have also cited the

judgment of Appellate Authority Yashwantpur Bengalore decided

on 30.06.2017 titled the Chiarman, Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank

VS B K Sathya Narayanan Rao wherein matter was decided in

favour of the Bank and the claim of the retired bank officers was

dismissed. The respondent appellate authority has arbitrarily not

considered their, own judgments just wrongly to benefit the

respondent officers.

5.13. That the Appellate Authority as well as the Controlling

Authority has ignored the rule laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank VS

Additional Labour Commissioner (reported in

Manu/SC/7040/2007) held that "The general legal principle in

interpretation of statutes is that the General Act should lead to

special Act. Upon this general principle of law, the intention of UP

Legislature is clear that special enactment
UP Cooperative

Societies Act
alone should apply".

5.14. That the NABARD and the sponsor bank SBI in its

guideline has opined against the inferences drawn by the

respondent no. 1 and 2. The NABARD by letter dated 02.05.2018

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(41 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

has clearly provided that in calculating the gratuity, if calculation is

made under the payment of
Gratuity Act
, the definition of service

regulations cannot be imported or relied and vice-varsa or cannot

be given an extended meaning to whatever is provided under the

Act. Convenient clauses of both the payment of
Gratuity Act
and

service regulation cannot be relied (Cherry picking) to arrive at

gratuity.

5.15.
Section 7(4)(b)
of the Act clearly limits the jurisdiction

of controlling authority, who can entertain an application "where

there is a dispute with regard to any matter or matters specified in

clause (a) the employer or employee or any other person raising

the dispute may make an application to the controlling authority

for deciding the dispute".

Only those disputes raised under
section 7 (4)(a)
of the

Act of 1972 only then the controlling authority can entertain the

application, otherwise there is clear bar in entertaining the

application. As in 105 cases the retired officers has not submitted

any dispute under
section 7(4)(a)
of the Act hence all the

applications are illegally entertained.

5.16. That the huge amount as directed by the respondent

no. 1 and 2 is to be paid out of the public money while

controlling or the appellate authority has illegally arrived by

arbitrary segregation of the provision of Act of 1972 and the

provisions of service regulation 2010, which is not permissible in

law and against the clear direction of NABARD, the rule laid

down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Beed District Cooperative Bank

Case.

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(42 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

5.17. That all the counter claims are submitted by the

respondent no. 3 in large no. of cases after the final arguments on

07.09.2020 and due to paucity of time could not be replied as per

procedure prevailing in the Hon'ble Court but the counter claim is

refuted in all cases claimed by the respective retired bank officers

(respondent no. 3) and the reply to the counter claim is submitted

as under:

The appellate authority in all cases has turn down the

wrongly claimed and ordered by the controlling authority by

misinterpreting the provision laid down under the regulations

72(3) in its first proviso providing for officer and employees who

have completed more than 30 years of service to be eligible for

additional amount of gratuity @ of one half of a month's pay for

each completed year of service beyond 30 years.

That the provision is unambiguous and clear but

intentionally by misinterpretation the respondents are submitting

their counter claim which is not admissible.

The proviso to the regulation 72(3) clearly states that

@ of one half of a month's pay for each completed year of service

beyond 30 years that means 1/2 of a month's pay. If there would

have one and half then it would have been 1-1/2 (one and half)

while it is no ambiguity and the order of the appellate authority to

this extent is right in rejecting the claim of the retired officers.

5.18. That the respondent no. 3 has argued with wrong

interpretation of provision laid down under
section 4(5)
and

section 14
of the Act of 1972. The provision laid down under

section 4(5)
of the Act 1972 in Beed District Central Cooperative

Bank case and Allahabad Bank VS All India Allahabad Bank retired

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(43 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

officers case where in by the Hontble Supreme Court the ambit

and scope is clearly deliberated. The judgments are submitted

with -these written arguments.

While the ambit and scope of
section 14
of the Act

1972 is not applicable in the present case as the claimants are to

opt either of the calculated amount based on the formula of either

Act of 1972 or service regulation 2010, hence there is no

ambiguity and conflict in the matter regarding the supremacy or

over riding. As either of the two i.e. Act of 1972 provisions or the

provisions of service regulations 2010 are to be applied. The

claimants are cleverly want to segregate the beneficial terms of

both and the controlling and appellate authority wrongly allowed

such segregation which is clearly barred by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court.

5.19. That the payments made by some of the Regional Rural

Banks ignoring the clear provisions laid down under the service

regulations 2010, hand in glove, as all the present working officers

are also to be benefited of such wrong payments in future cannot

be ground of payment to such claimants in the present writ

petitions claiming the gratuity to be under a social legislature

cannot be permitted putting the public money to be looted by

manipulations.

5.20. That the applications filed by various retired employees

where retirement ranging from the year 2008 to 2018 were time

barred. It is pertinent to mention here that the controlling

authority has condoned the delay even when no application for

condonation of delay was filed by the respondent

employees/officers which is unjust and arbitrary.

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(44 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

5.21. That as per the provision Rule 10 of the Payment of

Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 read as under: --

10. Application to controlling authority for direction.

- (1) If an employer-

(i) refuses to accept a nomination or to entertain an
application sought to be filed under rule 7, or

(ii) issues a notice under sub-rule (1) of rule 8 either
specifying an amount of gratuity which is considered by the
applicant less than what is payable or rejecting eligibility to
payment of gratuity, or

(iii)having received an application under rule 7 fails to issue
any notice as required under rule 8 within the time
specified therein, the claimant employee, nominee or legal
heir, as the case may be, may, within ninety days of the
occurrence of the cause for the application, apply in Form
'N' to the controlling authority for issuing a direction under
sub-section (4) of
section 7
with as many extra copies as
are the opposite party:

Provided that the controlling authority may accept any
application under this sub-rule, on sufficient cause being
shown by the applicant, after the expiry of the specified
period.

2) Application under sub-rule (1) and other documents
relevant to such an application shall be presented in person
to the controlling authority or shall be sent by registered
post acknowledgment due.

Bare perusal of the Rule 10 provides that the

application to the Controlling Authority should be filed within 90

days.

5.22. That the Hon' ble Supreme Court in
U.P. Jal Nigam

& Anr Vs Jaswant Singh & Anr
judgment dated 10.11.2006

has observed as under: --

"The statement of law has also been summarized in
Halsbury's Laws of England, Para 911, pg.395 as follows

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(45 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

"In determining whether there has been such delay as to
amount to laches, the chief points to be considered are

(i) acquiescence on the claimant's part;

and

(ii) any change of position that has occurred on the
defendant's part.

Acquiescence in this sense does not mean standing by while
the violation of a right is in progress, but assent after the
violation has been completed and the claimant has become
aware of it. It is unjust to give the claimant a remedy where,
by his conduct, he has done that which might fairly be
regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it; or where by his
conduct and neglect, though not waiving the remedy, he has
put the other party in a position in which it would not be
reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be
asserted. In such cases lapse of time and delay are most
material. Upon these considerations rests the doctrine of
laches.

In view of the statement of law as summarized above,
the respondents are guilty since the respondents has
acquiesced in accepting the retirement and did not challenge
the same in time. If they would have been vigilant enough,
they could have filed writ petitions as others did in the
matter. Therefore, whenever it appears that the claimants
lost time or while away and did not rise to the occasion in
time for filing the writ petitions, then in such cases, the
Court should be very slow in granting the relief to the
incumbent. Secondly, it has also to be taken into
consideration the question of acquiescence or waiver on
the part of the incumbent whether other parties are going to
be prejudiced if the relief is granted. In the present case, if
the respondents would have challenged their retirement
being violative of the provisions of the Act, perhaps the
Nigam could have taken appropriate steps to raise funds so
as to meet the liability but by not asserting their rights the

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(46 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

respondents have allowed time to pass and after a lapse of
couple of years, they have filed writ petitions claiming the
benefit for two years. That will definitely require the Nigam
to raise funds which is going to have serious financial
repercussion on the financial management of the Nigam.
Why the Court should come to the rescue of such persons
when they themselves are guilty of waiver and
acquiescence."

5.23. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court while passing the

judgment dated 13.09.2013 in
Esha Bhattacharjee Vs

Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and

others
(2013) 12 SCC 649 has laid down certain principles for

condonation of delay as under: --

"15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that
can broadly be culled out are:

i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented,
non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for
condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to
legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

ii) The terms sufficient cause should be understood in their
proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to
the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be
applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.

iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the
technical considerations should not be given undue and
uncalled for emphasis.

iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation
of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or
litigant is to be taken note of.

v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking
condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof
should not affect public justice and cause public mischief

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(47 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the
ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.

vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the
conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a
totally unfettered free play.

viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a
delay of short duration or few days, for to the former
doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may
not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict
approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

ix) The conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to
its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken
into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is
that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of
justice in respect of both parties and the said principle
cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal
approach.

x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds
urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be
vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face
such a litigation.

xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with
fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse
to the technicalities of law of limitation.

xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized
and the approach should be based on the paradigm of
judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning
and not on individual perception.

xiii) The State or a public, body or an entity representing a
collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.

16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more
guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(48 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted
with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner
harboring the notion that the courts are required to condone
delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a
lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system.

b) An application for condonation of delay should not be
dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual
philosophy which is basically subjective.

c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being
had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious
effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the
adjudicatory.

d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-
serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be
exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of
course, within legal parameters. "

5.24. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj & Anr.

Vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746 has

held that: -

"Condonation of delay without considering the most relevant
factor i.e. "sufficient cause" only on the condition that
applicant would be deprived of interest for the delay period
is most in appropriate. Where a case has been presented in
the Court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the
Court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an
adequate and enough reason which prevented him to
approach the Court within limitation. No Court could be
justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing
any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided
only within the parameters
laid down by
the Court in regard
to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient
cause to prevent a litigant to approach the Court on time
condoning the delay without any justification, putting any
condition whatsoever, amount to passing an order in

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(49 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamount to
showing utter disregard to the legislature."

5.25. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Gagandeep

Pratishthan Pvt. Ltd. G Others Vs M/S Mechano and Anr.
,

AIR 2002 SC 204 has held that: -

"In view of the peculiar facts of the case without going into
the merits of the contentions raised by the counsel for the
appellants, we think it is just and fair that we should not at
this point of time interfere with the impugned order though
the High Court could have avoided passing such orders in
proceedings where the maintainability itself was being
seriously questioned. Be that as it may, we at this stage
think it appropriate that the High Court should consider the
question of condonation of delay and the objection of the
appellants herein in regard to maintainability of the appeal
first, before proceedings with the appeal any further. We
also think it to be just and proper that any further in interim
orders if necessary in the appeal before the High Court in
regard to the suit property should be made only after
deciding the question of delay and maintainability of the
appeal..... ."

5.26. That the Hon'ble Madras High Court in
M. Devarajulu

Vs Asst
. Commissioner of Labour & Ors. judgment dated

25.11.1992 has held that: --

"In cases where the institution of proceedings is conditioned
upon any time limit and when a proceeding is initiated
beyond the time limit and is accompanied by an application
for condonation of the delay in presenting such a claim or
petition, unless such a delay in condoned after hearing the
parties before it, it could not be legitimately stated that a
valid proceeding has been instituted before the forum, to
enable it to enter into an adjudication of the claim on merits.
Till the delay is condoned by a specific order for that purpose
under the signature and authority of the Presiding Officer of

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(50 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

the forum concerned, in law, it should be taken that there is
no proceeding, as such, before it. Before the main claim
petition could be considered on merits, the delay should first
be considered and condoned and orders passed thereon and
only thereafter the legality of the claim on its merits has to
be taken up."

5.27. That the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in
Bangalore

Metropolitan Transportation Corporation Vs The Deputy

Chief Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority

under PG Act & Ors. judgment dated 07.01.2008 has held

that: --

"9..........However, the proviso to Rule 10 does not show
that, if the application is made beyond the period prescribed
under Rule 10, an application showing sufficient cause is
required to be made. This aspect of the matter is considered
by the Bombay High Court replying on the judgment of the
Apex Court at para--23 wherein it is held, in absence of
condoning the delay, the Controlling Authority to deal with
the application on merit could be one without jurisdiction.
The Bombay High Court hag relied on a judgment of the
Apex Court reported in AIR 2002 SC 204 in the matter of

Ganagndeep Pratishthan Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mechano
.

10. In this case, learned Counsel appearing for the legal
representatives of the respondent No. 2 does not dispute
that, except claim petition in terms of Form, 'N', no
application is filed for condonation of delay by showing
sufficiency of cause. It is also not disputed that, Form, 'N' by
itself does not provide for explanation of the delay. When
reading of Rule 10 clearly indicated that, an application for
claim under Rule 10 is required to be made in 90 days and
any application made beyond 90 days requires sufficient
cause and sufficient case should be shown only by filing an
application along with Form 'N'.

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(51 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
also the judgment of the Bombay High Court and also the
Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court reported in
1995 (I) LLJ 348 (supra), I am of the opinion that, if an
application is made before the Con trolling Authority beyond
the stipulated time prescribed in Rule 10, then the said claim
or application requires an application for condonation of
delay showing sufficient cause, without there being such
application, the Controlling Authority proceeding with the
matter would be in violation of Rule 10 of the Rules. Hence,
the petition requires to be allowed. "

5.28. That the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs The Deputy

Chief Labour Commissioner
judgment dated 08.10.2013 has

held that: --

"A perusal of the affidavit accompanying the application is a
clear indicator of the fact that the 3 rd respondent did not
seek to condone the delay of 14 years but sought to
condone the delay without making a reference to the period
of delay. The averments in the affidavit accompanying the
application state that a friend of the deponent advised him
to file an application. Material particulars and the dates are
not forthcoming. The inordinate delay of 14 years in
initiating the proceedings is not satisfactorily explained and
therefore, the Controlling authority, in my considered
opinion as fully justified in declining to condone the delay.
The Appellate Authority, without noticing the fact that no
explanation is forthcoming for the delay, adopted a perverse
approach to condone the delay. The exercise of judicial
discretion in the absence of relevant material particulars , is
unwarranted calling for interference. It is elsewhere said that
the discretion to condone the delay like any other judicial
discretion must be exercised with vigilance and
circumspection, according to justice, common sense and
sound judgment. The word 'sufficient cause' should receive a

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(52 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

liberal construction so as to advance the cause of substantial
justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafides
is imputable to the applicant."

5.29. That Hon'ble Supreme Court in Veerayeeammal v.

Seeniammal reported in 2002 (1) SCC 134, at Paragraph

13, the words "reasonable time" as explained, is as follows:

"13. The word reasonable has in law prima facie meaning of
reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the
person concerned is called upon to act reasonably knows or
ought to know as to what was reasonable. It may be
unreasonable to give an exact definition of the word?
reasonable?. The reason varies in its conclusion according to
idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and
circumstances in which he thinks. The dictionary meaning of
the? reasonable time? is to be so much time as is necessary,
under the circumstances, to do conveniently what the
contract or duty requires should be done in a particular
case. In other words it means, as soon as circumstances
permit. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar? The Law Lexicon it is defined
to mean: A reasonable time, looking at all the circumstances
of the case; a reasonable time under ordinary
circumstances; as soon as circumstances will permit; so
much time as is necessary under the circumstances,
conveniently to do what the contract requires should be
done; some more protracted space than? directly?; such
length of time as may fairly, and properly, and reasonably
be allowed or required, having regard to the nature of the
act or duty and to the attending circumstances; all these
convey more or less the same idea?

5.30. That from bare perusal of the provisions of the

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers And Employees)

Service Regulations, 2010, it is clear that Dearness Allowance is

not included in gratuity under Rule 72 (3) for 'Officer' defined

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(53 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

under Rule 2 (I) of the said Rules. However, Dearness Allowance

is specifically included in gratuity under Rule 72 (3) for

'Employees' defined under Rule 2 (j) of the said Rules. It is

pertinent to mention here that the applicant has never challenged

the said provisions before any court of law and has approached

the Controlling Authority which was not having any jurisdiction to

interpret the provisions of the Rules, 2010.

5.31. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment

dated 29.04.2020 in BHC Electric Limited Vs Pradeep Mehra

has observed as under:

"23. In Beed District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. 4, the
gratuity scheme provided by the employer had better rate
for computing gratuity but the ceiling limit was lower;
whereas the entitlement under the provisions of the Act was
at a lesser rate but the ceiling prescribed by the Act was
higher than what was provided by the employer. This Court
laid down that an employee must take complete package as
offered by the employer or that which is available under the
Act and he could not have synthesis or combination of some
of the terms under the scheme provided by the employer
while retaining the other terms offered by the Act. That was
a situation where two alternatives were available to the
employee. The High Court in the present case, however,
distinguished said decision on the ground that the Scheme of
the appellant "itself provided for the rates as per
Section 4
(2)
of the Act but without upper limit under
Section 4 (3)
of
the Act". In our view, the High Court failed to consider the
effect and impact of Rule 6 (b) of the scheme. The Single
Judge did refer to said Rule 6 (b) but found that the Rule
was so broadly drafted that it could not be construed to
contemplate the ceiling limit under
Section 4 (3)
of the Act.

In our view, the true import of Rule 6 (b) which gets further
emphasized by stipulation in the Appendix to the Scheme

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(54 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

was lost sight of by the authorities under the Act and by the
High Court. If an employee is covered by the provisions of
the Act, according to said Rule 6 (b) the amount of gratuity
has to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. The Appendix to the Scheme reiterates the same
principle. Thus, in case of such an employee the gratuity has
to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act
and while so calculating, not only the basic principle
available in
Section 4 (2)
as to how the gratuity is to be
calculated must be applied but also the ceiling which is part
of
Section 4 (3)
must also apply. The rates and the
modalities of calculations of gratuity as available under the
Scheme of the Rules are to apply only to those employees
who are not covered by the provisions of the Act.

24. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the
Authorities under the Act and the High Court erred in
accepting the claim preferred by the respondent. We hold
that the appellant was right in going by the provisions of the
Act in the present matter and by the ceiling prescribed
under
Section 4 (3)
of the Act. Any mistakes on its part in
making some extra payments to some of the other
employees would not create a right in favour of others in the
face of the stipulations in the Trust Deed and the Scheme.

5.32. That the respondent employee has referred the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh, High Court. It is

submitted that from bare perusal of the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble MP High Court it can be seen that the Hon'ble Court has

specifically dealt with the interpretation of Madhyanchal Gramin

Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010 &

(Amendment) 2013-- Clause 2 (i) (m) (o) read with Regulations

72-- For determining last pay drawn for the purpose of calculation

of gratuity and Dearness Allowance is to be taken into account. It

is pertinent to mention here that the other aspects like delay in

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(55 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

filing application before the Controlling Authority, Jurisdiction of

Controlling Authority to give interpretation to the Service

Regulations, Applicants intention to take benefit of both Act &

Service Regulations were not in question before the Hon'ble High

Court.

It is further submitted that the applicant and other

Employees & Officers of the respondent Bank were duly provided

the copy of Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers &

Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, but none of the Employee

or Officer of the Bank has challenged the Service Regulations,

2010 with respect to the dispute raised before this Controlling

Authority while in service or after completing the superannuation

age, hence, thereby giving their silent consent to the said

Regulations.

5.33. That the appellate authority while partly allowing the

appeal has given benefit of inclusion of Dearness Allowance in the

definition of 'Pay' under Rajasthan Maudhara Gramin Bank

(Officers & Employees) Service Regulations 2010 to the

respondent employee , taking reference of the Hon'ble Madhya

Pradesh High Court judgment dated 06.09.2018 in
Ali India

Gramin Bank Pensioners Organization Unit Rewa vs.

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank & another
, the Hon'ble High Court

at para 24 of
the said judgment
has observed as under: --

"(24) In view of aforesaid analysis, in the considered opinion
of this Court the respondents have erred in not including DA
while calculating gratuity under the Regulations. Thus,
respondents are directed to include DA and recalculate the
gratuity of the petitioners and pay the difference arising
thereto to the petitioners within 60 days from the date of
communication of this order. Since, employer has not taken

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(56 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

into account the DA for calculating gratuity because of a
genuine interpretation problem which is not based on any
other reasons like lethargy or inaction, I am not inclined to
grant interest on such payment of gratuity to the
petitioners."

From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is evident

that the Hon'ble Court has allowed the Dearness Allowance as part

of 'Pay' while interpreting the provisions of the '(a) Madhyanchal

Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation,

2010 & (Amendment) 2013- Clause 2 (i) (m) (o) read with

Regulation 72 For determining last pay drawn for the

purpose of calculation of gratuity and Dearness Allowance

is to be taken into account.' In Exercise of its powers under

article 226
whereas in present case and other similar writ petitions

the respondent employee has never challenged the Rajasthan

Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service

Regulations, 2010.

5.34. That the proviso for calculation of gratuity under the

payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972
and Service Regulations, 2010 are

under:

A) Proviso under PG Act, 1972: --

Last wages drawn on date of leaving *15* length of
service/26

B) Proviso under Service Regulations, 2010: --

(1) Upto 30 years of service-- Pay X 15

(2) For additional 30 years of service

(i.e. beyond 30 years) -- Pay X additional
years of service/2

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(57 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

The appellate authority has passed the impugned order

in contradiction of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Beed District (Supra) because the employee cannot opt for the

both contrary to this the appellate authority has awarded

Dearness allowance as well as also taken divisor of 26 days for

calculation under Service Regulations, 2010 which is not provided

under the act.
Further, the appellate authority has completely

failed to consider the findings of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High

Court in
All India Gramin Bank
(Supra) where the Hon' ble Court

has refused to grant any interest to the employees, contrary to

this the appellate authority has granted interest to the respondent

employee from the date of retirement.

6.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the retired bank officers

have made their submissions in the ensuing paragraphs.

6.2 That, in these batch of writ petitions, except S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.11972/2019 (item No.59), the petitioner Bank has

basically questioned the orders passed by the learned Controlling

Authority and learned Appellate Authority under
Payment of

Gratuity Act, 1972
, wherein the answering-respondent-claimants

are retired officers of petitioner Bank, who have retired from bank

service, on reaching the age of superannuation and when they

were not paid their full due amount of gratuity, they approached

to the learned Controlling Authority under
Payment of Gratuity

Act, 1972
and submitted their individual claims, for paying them

differential amount of gratuity with interest, after proper

calculation/determination of gratuity amount, by adding dearness

allowance in their 'last pay drawn', and also prayed to pay gratuity

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(58 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

for excess services rendered beyond 30 years of service, by

applying correct formula by taking 45 days as pay, for one half

month period, as provided in the Regulation 72(3) of the

respondent Bank Service Regulation-2010, which claim has been

allowed. However the learned Appellate Authority under
Payment

of Gratuity Act, 1972
, interfered in the orders of the Controlling

Authority in relation to formula of one half month pay and treated

the said period as (.5 month) means 15 days only in place of 45

days and accordingly reduced the gratuity amount, in the appeals

filed by petitioner Bank. However, now both these orders are

under challenge in these writ petitions, at the instance of

petitioner Bank. But in writ petition no. 11972/2019 (item no. 59),

the challenge is made only to the order passed by the learned

Controlling Authority, which has also wrongly applied formula of

15 days only for excess service beyond 30 years.

6.3. The challenge to these orders of learned Controlling

Authority and learned Appellate Authority under
Payment of

Gratuity Act, 1972
is basically made on three fold grounds; (i)

Gratuity claim is time barred, (ii) the RMGB Service

Regulation-2010, does not provide for any dearness

allowance on "PAY" for the purpose of

calculating/determining amount of Gratuity to retired

officers of Bank; and (iii) respondent-claimant could not

take benefit of Gratuity claim both under
Payment of

Gratuity Act, 1972
, as well as under Rajasthan Marudhara

Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulation-

2010, as one has to chose either of them, for claiming benefit of

gratuity.

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(59 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

In regards to aforesaid three issues, raised by the

petitioner Bank, it is respectfully submitted as under:-

(i)
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
, does not
provide any time limit, for making a claim before
Controlling Authority, rather it casts a duty and
obligation, upon the employer to make payment of
gratuity, as entitled to employee, in accordance to
law, within stipulated time provided in Rule 7 of the
Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules 1972, wherein 30
days time limit is provided for submitting an
application to employer. However, in terms of
Section
7(2)
of the Act, of 1972, statute caste duty on
employer to determine gratuity amount, whether
claim application submitted by employee concerned
or not. It is also submitted that, under the Rules of 1972,
under Rule-10, there are three contingencies, in which a
claim application could be submitted directly to the
Controlling Authority. It is also submitted that,
Section
7(3)
of the Act, of 1972, makes obligatory to
employer to make payment of gratuity, to employee,
within 30 days. It is also submitted that, under
Section 8

of the Act, of 1972, an application could be submitted
to Controlling Authority, by retired employee and no
time limit has been prescribed for filing such claim
application and even Rule 7(5) of the Rules of 1972,
also says that;

"Provided that an application for payment of gratuity
filed after the expiry of the periods specified in this rule
shall also be entertained by the employer, if the applicant
adduces sufficient cause for the delay in preferring his
claim, and no claim for gratuity under the Act shall be
invalid merely because the claimant failed to present
his application within the specified period. Any dispute
in this regard shall be referred to the controlling authority
for his decision".

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(60 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

In view of above, the contention of the Bank on the
question of delay would not sustain. Because in this case,
the Bank, which was under obligation determine correct
gratuity amount, on retirement of respondent-claimant
officers, failed to pay the due amount and paid gratuity,
without adding dearness allowance.

(ii) That, the second contention of the petitioner bank,
which is more crucial be decided; whether a retired
officer of the bank, would be entitled to receive
gratuity, based on pay, after adding dearness
allowance to basic pay, while taking into account the
'last pay drawn' of retired officer, in terms of
Regulation 72(3) of the Regulation-2010? More so,
whether petitioner Bank could use two yardstick for
retired officers of the Bank and retired employees of
the Bank, for calculating amount of gratuity, wherein
in the later case, dearness amount has been added in
last pay, but in former case, dearness allowance is not
added in the last pay of retiring officers of the Bank?

(a) Although while hearing on such objection raised
by the Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, the Hon'ble MP
High Court (D.B.), overruled the said contention
in W.A. No. 1318/2018, in its order dated
03.10.2018 and held that, two yardstick cannot
be applied, for the purpose of determination of
gratuity for officers and employees separately.

(b) That, it is relevant to submit here that, amount of
gratuity is always determined for all set of employees,
on their "last pay drawn". The Bank Regulation-72(3)
nowhere says that, last pay for the purpose of
determining gratuity, means basic pay only. In fact,
for officers "last pay drawn" word has been used
in Regulation 72(3) and for employees it is
average pay of 12 months prior to retirement,
which would include 100% basic pay, dearness
allowance and special allowance and officiating

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(61 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

allowance payable during 12 months preceding
death, retirement. That, means for employees, it
would be determined by average of pay of last 12
months preceding retirement. However for officers, it
would be determined on last pay and "Last Pay
Drawn" does not mean only basic pay of last
month, preceding retirement. Therefore the Bank
has unnecessary given dispute, to undisputed statutory
provisions, due to lack of understanding of service
regulation and it was responsible for determining the
correct amount of gratuity, as per law.

(c) In this regard it is further respectfully submitted
that, issueraised by the petitioner Bank has been
already decided by the various other Hon'ble High
Courts of this country, i.e. by the Hon'ble Madhya
Pradesh High Court by Hon'ble Single Bench in the case
of "
All India Gramin Bank Pensioners Organization
Unit Rewa Vs. Madhyanchal Gramin Bank &
Another
(Writ Petition no. 9182-2017 decided on
06.09.2018), which judgment of the Hon'ble
Single Bench has been further upheld by the
Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court by Hon'ble
Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1318/2019,
decided on 26.02.2019, which decision has been
further upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
SLP No.11113-11115/2019 decided on
07.05.2019, wherein it is held that, dearness
allowance (DA) forms part of pay, as it is
admissible for calculation of gratuity in the last
pay drawn by employee. The similar view has been
taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, by Hon'ble
Calcutta High Court and in the latest decision rendered
by the Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court.

(d) It is also respectfully submitted that, on the issue,
whether DA should be included in the Basic Pay and
should form part of "Last Pay Drawn", and other

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(62 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

various issues, raised by the petitioner bank in this writ
petition as well, the similar view has been taken by the
Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court recently in Writ Petition
(L) No.55/2020 titled
Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin
Bank Vs. Meghraj Pathak
and other connected
matters, decided on 31.08.2020. Thus the issue
raised by the petitioner Bank is no more res-integra
and said decisions squarely covers case of respondent-

claimants. Hence on this ground this writ petition
deserves to be dismissed with cost, to be awarded to
respondent no. 3.

(e) That, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the
case of Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and Anr. Vs. State
of Jammu & Kashmir & ors, (2008) 9 SCC 24, has
held that, all similarly situated should be extended
same benefit, when order of High Court has attained
finality.

(f) That, to sum up the arguments on the question of
admissibility of DA on basic pay in the last pay drawn,
suffice is to say that, definition provided in

Regulation 2(m)
of Bank Service Regulation-2010
speaks of 'Pay', applicable to both officers and
employees in equal terms, which includes
emoluments as well; and definition provided in
Sec. (i) speaks of emoluments, means aggregate
salary and Sec.(o) speaks of Salary, means
aggregate pay and dearness allowance. Thus, for
the purpose of drawing meaning of pay, all the three
definitions, are required to be read jointly and conjoint
reading of said definitions draws only one conclusion
that is; "pay means aggregate salary, including
dearness allowance". But the bank has failed to look
into all the said definitions, for determining amount of
gratuity on last pay drawn by retiring officers. Hence in
no way, different meaning could be drawn in last pay,
except, the one, already opined by the Hon'ble MP High

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(63 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

Court and Hon'ble Chhattisgarh high Court. Thus
contention of petitioner Bank would not sustain on this
ground also.

(iii) That, in regards to third issue, raised by the bank, it is
respectfully submitted by the humble respondent no. 3,
that, both the legislation are beneficial legislation and where
an employeederives higher benefits, the same should be
allowed in the legislation, which entitles him higher benefits
and this issue also has been dealt by the Hon'ble High
Courts referred above. Therefore the two decisions cited by
the petitioner Bank, while referring the decision of the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court, would not sustain, in view of
latest decision of the Hon'ble Chhatisgarh High Court supra.
Hence contention would not sustain.

6.4. That regarding cross objections, it is respectfully

submitted that, the order of the learned Appellate Authority, under

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
, also has been assailed by the

petitioner Bank, in this writ petition and after going through the

contents of the order of the learned Appellate Authority, the

humble respondent/claimants have come to know that, while

giving a wrong interpretation to the provisions of Rajasthan

Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service

Regulation-2010, for the purpose of calculating amount of

gratuity, for the excess services rendered by employees, beyond

30 years of service, only half month pay has been taken for

each number of year, whereas, a plan reading of regulation

72(3) of Regulation-2010, clearly shows that, for services

excess 30 years of service, an additional amount to be paid

in gratuity at the rate of "one half month pay", that is 45

days pay and not 15 days pay, as held by the learned

Appellate Authority. Thus, due to said an error, committed on

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(64 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

the part of learned Appellate Authority under
Payment of Gratuity

Act
, in its decision, rendered against learned Controlling Authority,

the difference of gratuity amount of respondent no.3 has been

reduced from the amount, awarded by controlling authority.

Therefore, order of the appellate authority, below, deserves to be

set aside to said extent and order of the learned Controlling

Authority under
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
, deserves to be

restored and differential amount to be paid to respondent no. 3,

with interest, as awarded by the learned Controlling Authority.

6.5. That, there is yet another important aspect of the case,

which respondent-claimants, came to know after filing reply that,

an amendment in the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
has

been made, wherein ceiling limit of Rs. 10.0 lakhs has been

increased to 20.0 lakhs and thereafter the petitioner Bank

has started paying gratuity to retired bank officers, by

including dearness allowance to basic pay, in the last pay

drawn, whereas in the Regulation 72(3) of the Bank

Service Regulation-2010, there is no any change in the

definition of "Pay", which shows, that, petitioner bank was

in error, for drawing meaning of connotation of "Pay"

provided in the service regulation. In view of above, the writ

petitions filed by the Bank deserves to be dismissed with cost and

compensation and it is also prayed, that the order of appellate

authority, for reducing gratuity amount, may kindly be interfered

and that order of the learned Controlling Authority, may kindly be

restored, except in writ petition no.11972/2019, wherein order of

controlling authority, deserves to be interfered to the extent of

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(65 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

applying correct formula for determining gratuity amount, for

services, above 30 years.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and

perusing the record of the case along with the precedent law cited,

this Court finds that certain provisions of law need to be

considered for deciding the dispute in question.
Sections 4(5)
,

5(2)
and
of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 read as under:-

Section 4(5)
:-

Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an
employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any
award or agreement or contract with the employer.

Section 5(2)
:-

The appropriate Government may, by notification and
subject such conditions as may be specified in the
notification, exempt any employee or class of
employees employed in any establishment, factory,
mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop
to which this Act applies from the operation of the
provisions of this Act, if, in the opinion of the
appropriate Government, such employee or class of
employees are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary
benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred
under this Act.

Section 14
:-Act to override other enactments, etc.

The provisions of this Act or any Rule made thereunder
shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any enactment other than this
Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by
virtue of any enactment other than this Act.

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(66 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

Paras no.2(1)(i), 2(1)(l), 2(1)(m) and 2(2) of the Rajasthan

Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service

Regulations, 2010 read as under :-

2(1)(i):-

"Emoluments" means the aggregate of salary and
allowances, if any;

2(1)(l):-

""Officer" means an officer of the Bank as classified
under Clause (a) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 3;

2(1)(m):-

"Pay" means basic pay drawn per month by the officer
or employee in a pay-scale including stagnation
increments and any part of the emoluments which may
specifically be classified as pay under these regulations.

2(2) :-

Words and expressions used here in and not defined in
the Act have the same meaning as assigned to them in
the Act.

The core dispute is that while calculating the gratuity

whether the bank was right in not taking basic pay, dearness

allowance, PQP and FPP in the last pay drawn and thus whether

less gratuity was awarded.

This Court takes note of the fact that as per the Clause

2(1)(m) of the Regulations of 2010, "pay" means the basic pay

drawn per month by the officer or the employee in a pay scale

including stagnation increments and any part of the emoluments

which may specifically be classified as pay under these

regulations. Further, this Court also take note of Clause 2(2)

whereby the words and expressions used herein and not defined

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(67 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

in the Act have the same meaning as assigned to them. This Court

also takes note of the fact that the Controlling Authority has

recorded that the Sponsor-Bank of the petitioner i.e. State Bank of

India had in fact considered the basic pay, PQP and stagnation

increments as included in the pay.

On a bare reading of
Section 2(s)
of the Payment of

Gratuity Act, 1972, "wages" means all emoluments.
Section 4(5)

of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has clearly laid down the law

that nothing in this section shall affect the right of an employee to

receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or

contract with the employer. Thus, this Court can safely derive a

conclusion that the Officers are entitled to get dearness allowance

also included for the purpose of calculation of gratuity. The

provision under
Section 7(3)
of the Payment of Gratuity Act which

provides that the employer shall arrange to pay the amount of

gratuity within a period of 30 days from the date it becomes

payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable, takes care

of the limitation portion of the objections.

This Court also made a categorical query that as

to how many Regional Rural Banks are operating in

Rajasthan after amalgamation of the various Regional Rural

banks under the
Regional Rural Banks Act
. To this, it was

jointly informed by the learned counsel for the parties that

one was Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank and another

was Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin bank. When a

query was put to the learned counsel for the parties that

what was the position regarding inclusion of the

emoluments in the pay for the purpose of computation of

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(68 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

gratuity in Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, the

attention of this Court was drawn to communication made

by the Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank dated

12.08.2016, which reads as follows:-

"izdk@2016&17@eklaiz@9538 fnukad % 12-08-2016
vR;Ur xksiuh;

{ks=h; izca/kd]
cM+kSnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad]
{ks=h; dk;kZy;]
lHkh {ks=
egksn;]
fo'k; % vf/kdkjh laoxZ dks ns; minku (Gratuity) jkf"k
dh x.kuk esa ewy osru] ih-D;w-ih- o eagxkbZ HkRrs dks "kkfey
djus ckcrA
fo'k;kUrxZr cSad LVkQ lsok fofu;e&2010 ds fu;e 72 ds
vuqlkj vf/kdkjh oxZ gsrq ns; xzsP;qVh dh x.kuk esa ewy
osru o ih-D;w-ih- ds lkFk eagxkbZ HkRrs dks "kkfey djus ds
lEcU/k esa ukckMZ ,oa izorZd cSad }kjk fd;s x;s Li'Vhdj.k
(Clearification) ij cSad ds funs"kd e.My }kjk
lgefr iznku djus dks n`f'Vxr j[krs gq, vf/kdkjh laoxZ
dks lsok fofu;e ds vuqlkj ns; xzsP;qVh dh x.kuk esa ewy
osru o ih-D;w-ih- ds lkFk eagxkbZ HkRrs dks Hkh "kkfey fd,
tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA

rn~uqlkj la"kksf/kr xzsP;qVh x.kuk "khV layXu dj izsf'kr dh
tk jgh gSA Hkfo'; esa vf/kdkfj;ksa gsrq xszP;qVh x.kuk esa ewy
osru o ih-D;w-ih- ds lkFk eagxkbZ HkRrs dks "kkfey djus gq,
xzsP;qVh x.kuk "khV izsf'kr dh tk,A

Hkonh;]
lgh@&
v"kksd dqekj tk;loky
egkizca/kd"

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(69 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

Thus, it became clear that the other Regional

Rural Bank functioning under the
Regional Rural Bank Act,
in Rajasthan is already paying the gratuity after

including all the emoluments in the pay and thus, any

discrimination between the two banks operating under the

Regional Rural Bank Act
shall not only be in violation of
Articles 14

and
of the Constitution of India but shall also cause prejudice

to the officers of the present bank vis-a-vis Officers of the other

Bank. It is needless to reiterate that the connotation of statute in

two Regional Rural Banks ought to be on the same pedestal.

The judgment rendered by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh

High Court in the case of
All India Gramin Bank Pensioners

Organization Unit Rewa vs. Madhyanchal Gramin Bank &

another
(writ petition no.9182/2017) decided on 6.9.2018 has

dealt with an issue which is almost same on the pedestal, relevant

paras no.15 to 24 whereof read as follow :-

"(15) Before dealing with the rival contentions of the
parties, it is apposite the refer the definitions of
"emoluments", "pay" &"salary". Regulation 72 is also relied
upon by the parties. These provisions read as under:

"(i)"Emoluments" means the aggregate of salary and
allowances, if any;

*** ******

(m)"Pay" means basic pay drawn per month by the officer or
employee in a pay scale including stagnation increments and
any part of the emoluments which may specifically be
classifieds as pay under these regulations;
*** ******

(o)"Salary" means aggregate of pay and dearness allowance;

*** ******

72.Gratuity.- (1) An officer or employee shall be eligible for
payment of gratuity either as per the provisions of the

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(70 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
(39 of 1972) or as per sub-
regulation (2), whichever is higher.

(2) Every officer or employee shall be eligible for gratuity on,-

(a) retirement,

(b) death,

(c) disablement rendering him unfit for further service as
certified by a medical officer approved by the Bank, or

(d) resignation after completing 10 years of continuous
service, or

(e) termination of service in any other way except by way of
punishment after completion of 10 years of service:

Provided that in respect of an employee there shall be no
forfeiture of gratuity for dismissal on account of misconduct
except in cases where such misconduct causes financial loss
to the bank and in the case to that extent only.(3) The
amount of gratuity payable to an officer or employee shall be
one months pay for every completed year of service or part
thereof in excess of six months subject to a maximum of 15
month's pay:

Provided that where an officer of employee has completed
more than 30 years of service, he shall be eligible byway of
gratuity for an additional amount at the rate of one half of a
month's pay for each completed year of service beyond 30
years:

Provided further that in respect of an officer the gratuity is
payable based on the last pay drawn:

Provided also that in respect of an employee pay for the
purpose of calculation of the gratuity shall be the average of
the basic pay (100%), dearness allowance and special
allowance and officiating allowance payable during the 12
months preceding death, disability, retirement, resignation or
termination of service, as the case may be."[Emphasis
Supplied]
(16) At the outset, I deem it proper to deal with the
contentions of the parties regarding meaning of the word
"Act" mentioned in
Regulation 2(2)
. The word "Act" is clearly
defined in Clause (a) of
Regulation 2
which means the

Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976
(21of 1976). Thus, I am
unable to persuade myself with the submission of Shri Gohil
that "Act" means payment of
Gratuity Act
.

(17) There is no quarrel between the parties that
calculation of gratuity needs to be done on the basis of
formula prescribed under the Regulation and as per the

Payment of Gratuity Act
. Employer has undertaken this

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(71 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

exercise and as mandated in Regulation 72 (1) decided to
grant gratuity as per regulations because this calculation is
higher than the calculation under the
Gratuity Act
. This is also
notit dispute that as per
Section 4(3)
of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, there exists a ceiling on the amount of gratuity
payable to an employee i.e. Rs.10,00,000/-. Thus, calculation
under the regulation was on a higher side and paid to the
officers. The spinal issue is whether the calculation of gratuity
under the regulations must include DA. The definition of
"wages" under the
Payment of Gratuity Act
although includes
"Dearness Allowance", said definition cannot be pressed into
service in the instant case for the simple reason that
calculation is made as per the Regulations and, therefore,
definitions aforesaid will be decisive for the purpose of
drawing meaning of words- "pay", "emoluments" & "salary"

etc.

(18) The learned counsel for the parties have taken a
diametrically opposite stand on the question of inclusion of DA
for determination of amount of gratuity. Shri Gohil contend
that second and third proviso of Clause (3) of Regulation 72
must be read conjointly. I do not see much merit in the said
contention. A careful reading of Regulation 72 shows that the
contention of Shri Shroti, learned senior counsel has
substance that Regulation is worded in a fashion whereby it
deals with "employees" and "officers" separately. The second
proviso, in my opinion is relating to officers, whereas the third
proviso covers the employees. As per second proviso, the
pivotal question is regarding meaning of expression last pay
drawn. This point requires serious consideration.

(19) The parties are at loggerheads on the meaning of
the word "pay". The officers contended that the word "pay"
must be read with "emoluments" & "salary", whereas, as
noticed, the employer's stand is that only such part of
emolument can be treated as "pay" which is specifically
classified as pay. Clause 2(m) shows that "pay" means basic
pay of the officers/employees which includes stagnation

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(72 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

increments and any part of emoluments which may
specifically be classified as "pay" under these Regulations. The
definition of "emoluments" shows that it is aggregate of salary
and allowance. "Salary" includes aggregate of pay and DA.

(20) A microscopic reading of Regulations show that
there exists no provision whereby any part of emolument may
specifically be classified as pay. This expression- any part of
emoluments which specifically be classified as pay needs
interpretation. In my view, a conjoint reading of definition of
"pay", "emoluments" & "salary" is required for proper
interpretation of the meaning of "pay" or the said highlighted
expression. It is important to note that "emoluments" is
aggregate of salary and allowance and "salary" is aggregate
of pay and dearness allowance. Thus, said three definitions
are deeply interlinked and correct meaning of said expression
can be drawn by combined reading of said three provisions.
The definition of "pay" refers about emolument, whereas
emolument includes salary which includes pay and dearness
allowance. Thus, dearness allowance is specifically classified
and must form part of pay because the said definitions are
closely interwoven. Otherwise, expression leads to an
absurdity and impossibility. Absurdity, inconsistency and
impossibility because in the Regulations there exists no
provision for undertaking such exercise of specially classifying
an emolument as pay.

(21) The settle law is that if the grammatical
construction leads to some absurdity or inconsistency with the
rest of instruments, it maybe departed from so as to avoid the
absurdity and inconsistency.{See: AIR 1952 SC 324,
[Shamrao vs. District Magistrate, Thana]; 1996 (2) All
ER 23, [Imperical Chemicals Industries vs. Colmer] &
2009 (
2) SCC 1, [Mahmadhusen Abdulrahim Kalota
Shaikh v. Union of India
].

Similar view is taken by
Supreme Court in AIR 1998 SC 1070, [R. Rudraiah vs.
State of Karnataka] and
AIR 2000 SC 1261, [Molar Mal
vs. Kay Iron Works
]}. Justice CORDOZO said "A judge must

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(73 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

think of himself as an artist, who although he must know the
handbooks, should never trust to them for his guidance; in
the end he must rely upon his almost instinctive sense of
where the line lay between the word and the purpose which
lay behind it." {See: Mr. Justice Cordozo by Learned
Hand, 52Harvard Law Review, pp. 361-63}.

(22) This is trite law that statute should not be
construed as the orems of Euclid, but it should be construed
with some imagination of the purposes which lies behind
them. It is said by Judge LEARNED HAND in Lehigh Valley
Coal v. Yensavage, 218Fed 547, pp. 552, 553 : 235 US
705 (1915). In the words of Justice Chhinappa Reddy, J
"Interpretation must depend on the text and the context.
They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the
text is the texture, context is what gives colour. Neither can
be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best
which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual.
A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was
enacted.". {See: Reserve Bank of India vs. Pear less
General Finance and Investment Co.,reported in 1987
(1) SCC 424}. Iyer, J opined "to be literal in meaning is to
see the skin and miss the soul. The judicial key to
construction is the composite perception of 'deha' and 'dehi' of
the provision."
{See:
AIR 1977 SC 965,[Chairman, Board
of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines v.
Ramjee
]}. In view of principles
laid down in
the said
authorities, the definition, clauses and Regulation 72 must be
read conjointly to draw the meaning of second proviso of
Regulation 72 and, more particularly, meaning of "last pay".
As per the text and in the context the aforesaid expression
relied upon by learned senior counsel is used, in my judgment
"pay" includes dearness allowance as it exists as a
classification in the definition of "salary" which has a direct
nexus/relation with "emoluments" and "pay".

(23) The matter may be viewed from another angle. The
provision relating to grant of gratuity is a beneficiary

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(74 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

provision. It must be considered on the anvil of beneficent
rule of construction. It is trite law that in the matter of welfare
legislation, especially involving the work force, the terms of
contract and the provisions of law should be liberally
construed in favour of weak.
{See: Workmen of Binny Ltd.
v. Management of Binny Ltd., reported in 1985 (4) SCC
325; Indian Bank vs. K. Usha, reported in AIR 1998 SC

866.}.

(24) In view of aforesaid analysis, in the considered
opinion of this Court the respondents have erred in not
including DA while calculating gratuity under the Regulations.
Thus, respondents are directed to include DA and recalculate
the gratuity of the petitioners and pay the difference arising
thereto to the petitioners within 60 days from the date of
communication of this order. Since, employer has not taken
into account the DA for calculating gratuity because of a
genuine interpretation problem which is not based on any
other reasons like lethargy or inaction, I am not inclined to
grant interest on such payment of gratuity to the petitioners.

(25) Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated
above."

The validity of the aforesaid Single Bench judgment

rendered by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court was questioned

before the Division Bench and the Division Bench affirmed the

same vide judgment dated 26.2.2019, relevant paras no.9 to 12

whereof read as follow :-

"9. After having heard rival submissions of the parties, we
do not find any merit in the present appeals. Chapter VII of
regulation deals with the various provisions relating to
provident fund, pension, gratuity, domicile, transferability,
lending of services of an officer or employee to other
organization, implementation of regulations and repeal and
savings. The Regulation 72 provides that an officer or
employee shall be eligible for payment of gratuity either as

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(75 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

per the provisions of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
or as
per sub regulation (2) whichever is higher. Officer or
employee are eligible for gratuity on retirement, death,
disablement, resignation after completing 10years of the
continued service or termination of service in any other way
except by way of punishment after completion of 10 years of
service. Sub section (3) provides the calculation of the
amount of gratuity. The amount of gratuity payable to an
officer or employee shall be one month's pay for every
completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six
months subject to a maximum of 15 month's pay. There is a
proviso that an officer or employee who has completed more
than 30 years of service, he shall be eligible by way of
gratuity for an additional amount at the rate of one half of a
month's pay for each completed year of service beyond 30
years. The second proviso states that in respect of an officer
the gratuity is payable based on the last pay drawn. The "Pay"

is defined under regulation 2(m) which means basic pay
drawn per month by the officer or employee in a pay scale
including stagnation increments and any part of the
emoluments which may specifically be classified as pay under
these regulations. Admittedly, no part of the emoluments has
been specifically classified under the regulation as 'pay'. The
'emoluments' is defined under
Regulation 2(i)
means the
aggregate of salary and allowances, if any. 'Salary' is further
defined under
Regulation 2(o)
means aggregate of pay and
dearness allowance. Thus, the learned Single Judge has
rightly held after referring to the definitions of 'emoluments',
'pay' and 'salary' that a conjoint reading of definitions of
'emoluments', 'pay' and 'salary', 'the last pay drawn' under
regulation 2 proviso of sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 72
would include dearness allowance for computation of gratuity
in respect of officers as well.

10. The judgments
referred above
by the learned Senior
Counsel in support of his contention would not render any
assistance to contend that the intention of the Rule making

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(76 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

authority is to treat the officers differently from the
employees in view of the definitions of 'emoluments', 'pay'
and 'salary' and further Regulation 72.

11.
In the case of
Baddula Lakshmaiah and others vs. Sri
Anjaneya Swami Temple and Others
, (1996) 3 SCC 52, the
Apex Court ruled that in an intra-court appeal the appellate
Court is a Court of correction which corrects its own orders, in
exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the Single
Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of subordinate
court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High Court exercises
the powers of a Court of Error.

12. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Bench warranting any
interference in these intra-court appeals. Accordingly, the writ
appeals deserve and are hereby dismissed. No order as
costs."

Thereafter, the same proposition has been upheld by

the Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing the S.L.P. No. 11113-

11115/2019 preferred against the aforesaid judgment of the

Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 26.2.2019.

The judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the

case of
Aruk Kumar Basubal & Ors. vs. Bangiya Gramin

Vikash Bank & Ors.
has also dealt with the same issue, relevant

paras no.8 to 12 whereof read as follow :-

"8. After hearing Counsel on behalf of the appearing parties
and considering the materials on record, I find no reason
whatsoever to differ from the judgement of the Single Bench
and Division Bench passed by the Madhya Pradesh High court.
The said judgement has dealt with the issue in extensia and
the reasons enumerated therein are flawless. Keeping in
mind, the beneficial nature of the regulation, a beneficial
legislation is required to be interpreted in a manner that

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(77 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

would accrue favourably to the beneficiary and not in a
manner by way of an extremely strict interpretation.

9. In the present case, in fact, I find that the regulations
are crystal clear and there is no room for doubt to the
intention of the legislature in framing of these regulations.

10. In light of the above, I hold that the petitioners shall be
entitled to gratuity based on a calculation that would include
'dearness allowance' in the "last pay. The respondents are
directed to include the dearness allowance and recalculate the
gratuity of the petitioners and pay the difference arising
thereto to the petitioners expeditiously and preferably within
90 days from date.

11. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.

12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be given to the parties, on priority basis, upon compliance
of necessary formalities.

The Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court has also dealt with

an identical issue in the case of
Chattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank

vs. Meghraj Pathak & Ors. (Writ
petition no.55/2020) decided

on 31.8.2020, relevant paras no.30 to 35 whereof read as

follow :-

"30. The real controversy between the parties is as to the
basis of calculation of the amount of gratuity payable. Since
there is no upper ceiling or cap provided in the regulations
like under the
Payment of Gratuity Act
, the officers insisted
that they be paid gratuity under the Regulations by including
DA as a component within the expression Pay as defined
under Clause-2M of the Regulations, 2013. The fact which
requires consideration also is that there isno exclusion of DA
reflected in the definition of Pay under the Regulations,2013.
It is here that the definition of emolument becomes more
relevant. The emolument under the definition under 2-I of the
Regulations means aggregate of salary and allowances and

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(78 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

what exactly is salary is also defined under 2-O of the
Regulations, 2013 which clearly holds that salary means
aggregate Pay and DA.

31. What needs to be considered now under the given
circumstances is, can expression of Pay as is reflected under
the definition clause 2-M of the Regulations, 2013 mean
inclusive of DA or excluding DA ?

32. If we read the definition Clause 2-M of the Regulations,
it clearly reflects that the framers of the said Regulations were
of the view that Pay means Basic Pay plus the emoluments
which is classified as Pay. Now what are emolument which can
be classified as Pay. The Bank has not produced any
documentary proof to show what are those emoluments which
according to the Bank is specifically classified as Pay. Under
the circumstances, it becomes necessary to take the definition
of emolument and the definition of salary together into
consideration to decide whether the DA would be part of Pay
for the purpose of calculating gratuity.

33. It is here that the Single Bench of MP High Court has
clearly held that the expression Pay, Emolument and Salary
are interlinked, interconnected, interwoven and
supplementing each other. This court fully endorses the view
taken by the Single Bench of MP High Court. The view of this
court gets further strengthened from the plain reading of Sub
Clause-3 and the three provisos provided under Clause-72 of
the Regulations, 2013.

34. If the framers of the Regulations were of the view that
for calculating gratuity for officers DA was not to be taken into
consideration, they would have simply clarified it in the
proviso as has been done in the case of 'employees' which is
reflected in the 3rd proviso where in respect of an employee it
has been specifically held that the gratuity shall be the
average of basic pay plus DA and special allowances,
whereas, so far as the officers are concerned, in the second
proviso it has been specifically mentioned that the gratuity

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(79 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

shall be payable based upon the last pay drawn. Emphasis
has been given on Pay. The authorities could have simply held
that it would be payable on the basic pay and those
allowances which are part of Pay under the Regulations.
Having not done so, the term Pay would have to be given a
broader and wider interpretation and the said interpretation
should always be tilting towards the weaker section i.e.
officers as payment of gratuity is one of those beneficial
legislation enacted for the benefit of the employees and
officers.

35. As regards the judgments of Bombay High Court which
has been heavily relied upon by the petitioner-Bank, true it is
that the Bombay High Court has taken a different view than
what has been taken by the MP High Court. It is also
undisputed legal position that when there are two conflicting
views available for a court in deciding the matter and if the
two conflicting views are of the same High Court, the option
left for this court is for referring the matter to a larger Bench.
However, in case if the conflicting views are of different High
Courts, the Bench has an option of testing and then to
endorse a view from among the two that which is more
probable and justifiable. This court finds the judgment of MP
High Court to be more probable in the factual matrix of the
case. Moreover, the judgment of MP High Court has also been
tested before the Division Bench as also before the Supreme
Court and before both the higher forums it has got the stamp
of acceptance, unlike in the case of Bombay High Court where
it is not known whether the judgment of the Bombay High
Court has been subjected to challenge further or not. The
same principle also applies so far as judgment of Allahabad
High Court is concerned."

Though the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Bombay

High Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the

case of
Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank vs. The Appellate

Authority & Anr.
(writ petition no.8272/2018), decided on

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(80 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

6.1.2020, was only a Single Bench judgment and where

diametrically reverse view has been taken, and the same was

taken into consideration by this Court, relevant paras no.20 to 22

whereof read as under :-

"20. Thus, the petitioner Bank is justified in raising a
grievance as regards the impugned orders passed by the
Appellate Authority. In fact, the Appellate Authority did not
discuss this main controversy between the parties at all and it
proceeded on the basis that calculation of gratuity under the
Act of 1972, as well as the Regulations resulted in the same
quantum of amount and that since the Regulations did not
have a cap or upper ceiling, the same would apply and not the
Act of 1972. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the
Appellate Authority are rendered unsustainable.

21. Once it is found that while calculating the amount of
gratuity payable to the contesting respondents under the
Regulations, only pay could be made the basis without adding
dearness allowance, the quantum of gratuity payable to the
contesting respondents comes to Rs.8,93,920/- in the case of
respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No. 8272/2018 and
Rs.7,61,740/- in the case of respondent No.2 in Writ Petition
No.8273/2018, which is much less than the amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- each disbursed by the petitioner Bank to the
said contesting respondents. Thus, the petitioner Bank applied
the provisions of the Act of 1972, while calculating the
amount of gratuity payable to the contesting respondents,
because by applying the provisions of the said Act higher
gratuity was payable to the contesting respondents, despite
the cap or upper ceiling of Rs.10,00,000/-. This amount for
disbursal of gratuity amount was correctly approved by the
Controlling Authority, while rejecting the applications filed by
the contesting respondents for claim of additional amount of
gratuity. But, the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the
contentions of the petitioner Bank.

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:41 PM)

(81 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

22. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed. The
impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority are
quashed and set aside and the orders passed by the
Controlling Authority in the case of the contesting respondents
are restored. Accordingly, the petitioner Bank is found not
liable to pay any further amount towards gratuity to the
contesting respondents as they admittedly received the
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the petitioner Bank
immediately upon their superannuation."

This Court is of the opinion that the judgment in

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank
(supra) rendered by the Hon'ble

Madhya Pradesh High Court and upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court

is the correct view and also binding upon this Court on count of

the same having been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Moreover, the Regulations of 2010 clearly define in

Clause 2(1)(i) that emoluments means aggregate of salary and

allowances and in Clause 2(1)(m) pay means basic pay drawn per

month by the officer or employee in a pay scale including

stagnation increments and any part of the emoluments which may

specifically be classified as pay under these Regulations. As per

the Clause 72(1) of the Regulations, for the purpose of gratuity,

an officer or employee shall be eligible either as per the provision

of
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
or as per the Sub-Regulation (2),

whichever is higher and thus, for the beneficial legislation of a

welfare law, the benevolent connotation ought to have been

accepted by this Court. There is no reason why this Court should

take a different view than the one taken by the Hon'ble Madhya

Pradesh High Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

The cross-objections made by the Officers do not

warrant any interference by this Court because on a bare reading

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:42 PM)

(82 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

of Clause 72(3) of the Regulations, it is clear that the Statute

required the petitioner to pay half month's pay for each completed

year of service beyond 30 years. Clause 72(3) of the Regulations

reads as follows:-

"(3) The amount of gratuity payable to an officer or employee
shall be one months pay for every completed year of service
or part thereof in excess of six months subject to a maximum
of 15 month's pay:

Provided that where an officer or employee has
completed more than 30 years of service, he shall be eligible
by way of gratuity for an additional amount at the rate of one
half of a month's pay for each completed year of service
beyond 30 years:

Provided that in respect of an officer the gratuity is
payable based on the last pay drawn:

Provided also that in respect of an employee pay for the
purposes of calculation of the gratuity shall be the average of
the basic pay (100%), dearness allowance and special
allowance and officiating allowance payable during the 12
months preceding death, disability, retirement, resignation or
termination of service, as the case may be."

Regulation 72(3) has an optimum gratuity prescribed

upto maximum of 15 months' pay and the concession given is only

for the officers who have completed more than 30 years of service

by making them entitled for an additional amount of one half of

month's pay for each completed year of service beyond 30 years,

which is an exception to the maximum of 15 months' pay gratuity

rule and thus, the exception has to be read strictly.

It is thus clear that the Appellate Authority has rightly

arrived at a conclusion that the Officers who have completed more

than 30 years of service shall be eligible by way of gratuity for the

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:42 PM)

(83 of 83) [CW-7359/2019]

additional amount at the rate of one half month's pay for each

completed service beyond 30 years.

Thus, once the statute is clear, there is no question of

of expanding the meaning. It is one thing to choose one of the

beneficial conditions amongst two and it is another thing to

expand the ambit of benefits which are strictly prescribed.

Accordingly, the cross objections are dismissed.

In light of the aforementioned observations, the legal

issues, facts and grounds raised by the petitioners do not call for

interference by this Court. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are

dismissed and the orders of the Appellate Authority are upheld.

The consequential benefits shall be released to the

respondent officers within a period of three months starting from

1st December, 2020.

All pending applications stand dismissed accordingly. All the

interim orders stand vacated forthwith.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

SPhophaliya/Jitender

(Downloaded on 23/10/2020 at 08:18:42 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)