APHC010842202018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 40624/2018 Between: 1. M/s.ANDHRA PRAGATHI GRAMEENA BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY K.V.SIVA REDDY KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ANDHRA PRAGATHI GRAMEENA BANK, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MARIYAPURAM, KADAPA TOWN, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKAT CHALLA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. V. UMA DEVI The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not taking the Dearness Allowances into consideration on par with other employees while fixing the gratuity to the petitioners in terms of the Gratuity Act is wholly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory as well as violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and for a consequential order directing the respondents to fix the gratuity amount to the members of the petitioner by taking the dearness allowances into consideration on par with other employees without fixing the ceiling limit in terms of the Gratuity Act.” 2 2. Heard Sri Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.V.Umadevi, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent-Bank. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Respondent- Bank had paid the gratuity amount by fixing a ceiling amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as against the eligible amount over and above Rs.10.00 lakhs under Regulation No.72 of Service Regulations, 2010, due to which the Petitioners are getting lesser amount of gratuity. Learned counsel would further submit that the Respondent – Bank had not taken the Dearness Allowance and other allowances into account while computing the gratuity amount for the Officers. Learned counsel would further submit that Sub Section 2(e) of the payment of Gratuity Act does not show any discrimination between „Officers‟ and other „Employees‟ and therefore, Section 4(5) of The Gratuity Act, shall be deemed to be applicable to the employees in the category of officers also. It is submitted that the distinction made between the officer and employee under Service Regulations while fixing the payment of gratuity, will have no legal sanctity. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent – Bank would submit the subject matter of this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the Common Order dated 30.04.2025 passed by this Court in Saptagiri Grameena Bank vs. Appellate Authority and others in W.P.Nos.1283 of 2018 and batch. In that view, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 3 5. As rightly put by the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent – Bank, this Court elaborately discussed and decided the issue raised in the present writ petition in Saptagiri Grameena Bank’s referred to supra, and held that “pay” in case of Bank Officers for the purpose of gratuity as per Regulation 72(3) does not include DA. It was further held that clubbing of the provisions of Service Regulations, 2010 and the Gratuity Act, by pick and choose method only to remove the upper cap of Rs.10,00,000/- under the Gratuity Act for the purpose of calculating the gratuity, is not permissible under law and it is an error of law. It was further held that the Bank Officers and the Bank Employees are on different pedestal. Hence, the question of discrimination in the light of Regulation 72(3) second proviso and third proviso, does not arise. 6. In that view, since the issue raised in the present petition is similar to that of the issue decided in the above batch of writ petitions, following the said Order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.1283 of 2018 and Batch, dated 30.04.2025 and taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:19.06.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No.40624 OF 2018 Dt.19.06.2025 Dinesh