IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA (Special Original Jurisdiction) / WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL Ig TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ ^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 1283.1284.1295 AND 1683 OF 2018 WRIT PETITION NO: 1283 OF 2018 Between: Satpagiri Grameena Bank, A Regional Rural Bank constituted under Regional Rural Banks Act 1976, rep.by It's General Manager (HR), P.B. No. 17, Head Office, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh- 517001 ...Petitioner AND 1. The Appellate Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, ATI Campus Vidyanagar, Hyderabad- 500 007, Telangana State 2. The Controlling Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad- 500 007, Telangana State. 3. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi 4. Sri C. Madhava Reddy, Retired Chief Manager, Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Door No. 18-4-60, Flat No.202, Railway Colony, Tirupati-Andhra Pradesh- 517501 ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the 1St respondent Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner ( Central ) and upon examining the orders quashing the impugned order Dt. 13.12.2017 pas sed in Case No. PGA-36/29/2017-E1. same, pass iA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspending the operation of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad Dt. 13.12.2017 in Case No. PGA-36/29/2017-E1, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. V LIMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1 to 3: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA /' Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI T KOTESWARA RAO // WRIT PETITION NO: 1284 OF 201« Between: Saptagiri Grameena Bank, A Regional Rural Bank constituted under Regional Rural Banks Act 1976, Rep. by its General Manager (HR), P.B. No. 17, Head Office, Chittor, Andhra Pradesh 517001 ...Petitioner AND 1. The Appellate Authority, under payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, ATI Campus Vidyanagar, Hyderabad 500007, Telangana State. The Controlling Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad 500 007, Telangana State. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi Sri P. Dasaradha Reddy, Retired Manager, Sapathagiri Grameena Bank, Door No. 2/185, Ramnagar Street, Sathyavedu, Chittoor District 517588 2. 3. 4. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the 1st respondent Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and upon examining the same, pass orders quashing the impugned order Dated. 13.12.2017 passed in Case No. PGA-36/25/2017-E1. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspending the operation of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad dated. 13.12.2017 in Case No. PGA-36/25/2017-E1, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s V UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI T KOTESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1295 OF 2018 * Between: Saptagiri Grameena Bank, A Regional Rural Bank constituted under Regional Rural Banks Act 1976, rep. by its General Manager (HR), P.B.No.17, Head Office, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh - 517001 ...Petitioner AND 1. The Appellate Authority, Under payment of Gtatuity Act 1972 and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, ATI Campus vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007, Telangana State. The Controlling Authority, under payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad-500 007, Telangana State Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Rep. by its secretary. New Delhi B.Reddappa Reddy, Retd. Chief Manager, Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Mathyam Paipalli, Muttukur P.O(via), Bangarupalyam, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh - 517 416 2. 3. 4. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a wirt order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the 1st respondent Appellate Authority under payment of Gratuity Act and Deputy chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and upon examining the same, pass orders may quashing the impugned order dt.13.12.2017 passed in case no.PGA- 36/23/2017-E1. lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspending the operation of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and Deputy chief Labour Commissioner (Central),Hyderabad, dt.13.12.2017 in case No. PGA36/23/2017-E1, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s V UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI T KOTESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1683 OF 2018 Between: Saptagiri Grameena Bank, A Regional Rural Bank constituted under Regional Rural Banks Act 1976, rep.by Its General Manager (HR), P.B. No. 17, Head Office, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh- 517001. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Appellate Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, ATI Campus, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad- 500 007, Telangana State The Controlling Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad- 500 007, Telangana State. 2. 3. Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi. 4. K Chenchi Reddy, Retired Manager, Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Door No. 8-88, Royal Nagar, R.C. Road, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh - 517 501 ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the 1st respondent Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and upon examining the same, pass orders quashing the impugned order Dt. 13.12.2017 passed in Case No. PGA- 36/31/2017-E1. lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspending the operation of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad Dt. 13.12.2017 in Case No. PGA-36/31/2017-El, pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 3 OF 2Q1« Shri K Chenchi Reddy, Retired Manager, Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Door No. 8-88, Royal Nagar, R.C. Road, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh - 517 501 ...Petitioner/Respondent No. 4 AND 1. Saptagiri Grameena Bank, A Regional Rural Bank constituted under Regional Rural Banks Act 1976, rep.by Its General Manager (HR), P.B. No.17, Head Office, Chittoor,Andhra Pradesh-517001. ...Petitioner/Respondent 2. The Appellate Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, ATI Campus Vidyanagar, Hyderabad- 500 007, Telangana State 3. The Controlling Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad- 500 007, Telangana State. 4. Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi. ...Respondents/Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 23.01.20'l8 passed in I.A.No. 2 of 2018 in W.P.No. 1683 of 2018 as modified by order dated 08.02.2018 in WA. No. 227 of 2018. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s V UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI K LAKSHMAN (ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL) Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI T KOTESWARA RAO The Court made the following Common Order: 1 APHC010026402018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION Nos. 1283. 1284.1295 and 1683 OF 2018 Writ Petition No.1283 of 2018: Between: 1.SATPAGIRI GRAMEENA BANK CONSTITUTED UNDER REP.BY OFFICE, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH- 517001 A REGIONAL RURAL BANK REGIONAL RURAL BANKS ACT 1976, IT'S GENERAL MANAGER (HR), P.B. N0.17, HEAD ...PETITIONER AND 1.APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 AND DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD, ATI CAMPUS, VIDYANAGAR, HYDERABAD- 500 007, TELANGANA STATE 2.THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 AND ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), ATI CAMPUS, VIDYANAGAR, HYDERABAD- 500 007, TELANGANA STATE. 3.UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI 4.SRI C MADHAVA REDDY RETIRED CHIEF MANAGER, SAPTHAGIRI GRAMEENA BANK, DOOR NO. 18-4-60, FLAT NO.202, RAILWAY COLONY, TIRUPATI-ANDHRA PRADESH- 517501 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Writ Petition No.1284 of 2018: Between; 1.SAPTAGIRI GRAMEENA BANK A REGIONAL RURAL BANK CONSTITUTED UNDER REGIONAL RURLA BANKS ACT BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (HR), P.B. NO.17 CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH 517001 1976, REP. HEAD OFFICE, ...PETITIONER AND 1.APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 AND DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD, ATI CAMPUS, VIDYANAGAR, HYDERABAD 500007 TELANGANA STATE. 2.THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 AND ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) ATI CAMPUS, VIDYANAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 007 STATE. 3.UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF SECRETARY, NEW DELHI 4. SRI P DASARADHA REDDY, RETIRED MANAGER, SAPATHAGIRI GRAMEENA BANK, DOOR NO. 2/185, RAMNAGAR STREET SATHYAVEDU, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 517588 TELANGANA FINANCE, REP. BY ITS ...RESPONDENT(S): Writ Petition No.1295 of 2018: Between: 1.SAPTAGIRI GRAMEENA BANK, A REGIONAL I CONSTITUTED UNDER REGIONAL RURAL BANKS ACT 1976 BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (HR), P.B.NO.17 CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517001 RURAL BANK REP. HEAD OFFICE, ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GTATUITY 3 ACT 1972 AND DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD, ATI CAMPUS, VIDYANAGAR, HYDERABAD - 500 007, TELANGANA STATE. 2.THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 AND ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), ATI CAMPUS, VIDYANAGAR, HYDERABAD-500 007, TELANGANA STATE 3. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARY, NEW DELHI REP. BY ITS 4.B REDDAPPA REDDY, RETD. CHIEF MANAGER, SAPTHAGIRI GRAMEENA BANK, MATHYAM PAIPALLI, MUTTUKUR P.O(VIA), BANGARUPALYAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517416 ...RESPONDENT(S): Writ Petition No.1683 of 2018: Between: 1.SAPTAGIRI GRAMEENA BANK, A REGIONAL RURAL BANK CONSTITUTED UNDER REGIONAL RURAL BANKS ACT 1976, REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (HR), P.B. N0.17, HEAD OFFICE, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH- 517001. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 AND DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD, ATI CAMPUS, VIDYANAGAR, HYDERABAD- 500 007, TELANGANA STATE 2.THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 AND ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), ATI CAMPUS, VIDYANAGAR, HYDERABAD- 500 007, TELANGANA STATE. 3.GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY^NEW DELHI. 4 # 4.K CHENCHI REDDY, RETIRED GRAMEENA BANK, DOOR NO. 8-88, ROYAL NAGAR TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 501 MANAGER SAPTHAGIRI R.C. ROAD, ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VUMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.M INDRANI 2. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 3.T KOTESWARA RAO The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER In view of the common issue involved in the batch of these writ petitions, they are being disposed by way of this common order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders dated 13.12.2017, passed by the learned Appellate Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short “The Gratuity Act”), the Petitioner-Bank preferred the above petitions seeking the indulgence of this Court by Writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the Respondent No.1 and quash the impugned orders, since there is error of law which is apparent on the face of the record. 3. It is pertinent to mention that the learned Appellate Authority (Respondent No.1) passed separate orders in all the petitions, disposed of on the very same day, on the same lines. 5 4. The case of the Petitioner-Bank in brief: (i) It is stated that the impugned orders are erroneous and illegal, since they are contrary to the various provisions under the statutes i.e. The Gratuity Act and “The Regional Rural Bank’s Act, 1976” (in short “The RRB Act”) and “Saptagiri Grameena Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010” (in short as “Service Regulations, 2010”). The Petitioner-Bank constituted under the RRB Act and it is sponsored by the Indian Bank. The Section 24 of the RRB Act stipulates that in the event of any question regarding a policy matter involving public interest, the decision of the Respondent No.3 i.e. Government of India shall be final. The Board of Directors of the Bank are governed by Section 30 of the RRB Act. Whereas, Section 32 of the RRB Act mandates that the provisions of the Act have overriding effect on all other statutes, (ii) It is further stated that the Petitioner-Bank has framed Service Regulations, 2010 with prior approval of Government of India under RRB Act. The Regulation No. 72 of the said Service Regulations deals with payment of gratuity to the Officers and Employees of the Petitioner-Bank. The Section 2(m) of the said Regulations defines “pay” means basic pay and it does not include Dearness Allowance (in short “DA”). The Learned Appellate Authority has taken the term “wages” from The Gratuity Act, for the purpose of adding DA to the pay, but ordered the Bank to calculate the gratuity in terms of the Service Regulations, 2010 to bypass the upper cap of Rs. 10,00,000/- stipulated under The Gratuity Act. was (iii) It is further stated that the Bank has calculated the gratuity by applying two methods, one as per the Service Regulations, 2010 and other as per the provisions of The Gratuity Act. The bank arrived at a conclusion that the Bank Officers may get higher amount under The Gratuity Act and accordingly the bank settled their gratuity as per The Gratuity Act. It is stated that the Bank Officers without any protest, received the gratuity amount and subsequently raised a dispute before the Controlling Authority and Aggrieved thereby, the bank has preferred appeal. succeeded. (IV) It IS further stated that the learned Appellate Authority has erred in framing issues and dealt with the aspects which Petitioner-Bank in the Appeal. The learned Appellate Authority were never raised by the also decided the sustainability of the RRB Act, which is beyond the scope of the Appeal. It is further stated that, viewed from any angle, the impugned orders erroneous, ultravires and unwarranted, finally not sustainable under law. are Contentions of Bank Officers fResnondent No.4): 5. It is stated that the Bank Officers, who are the Pensioners, cannot be discriminated by way of illegal classification, dividing them into two classes as Employees and Officers, by applying different standards, which is a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The scope of judicial review against quasi-judicial orders is very limited, unless there is an error of law which is apparent on face of the record. It is further stated that “the pay and emoluments” are the criteria for both Employees and Officers for computing gratuity under the Service (ii) iz - 7 Regulations, 2010. But in case of employees, the Dearness Allowance, Special Allowance and Officiating Allowance were also calculated, whereas for Officers, only pay was considered which is a patent arbitrariness. It is further stated that the Bank Officers are entitled for higher gratuity, if DA is considered as part of pay. The Controlling Authority has rightly held that the employees are entitled for additional amount of 15 days of pay as gratuity per every completed year of service after completing 30 years of service and also granted 10% interest per annum for the delay, on differential amount. It is also stated that the appeal preferred by the Petitioner-Bank before the Appellate Authority was dismissed. The Appellate Authority thoroughly scrutinized the issue by giving a comprehensive comparison with regard to Regulation 2(m) with Sec. 2(s) of The Gratuity Act, Regulation 72 of the Service Regulations, 2010 and Section 4(5) of The Gratuity Act and held that there is a clear discrimination in framing the regulations, though there is no discrimination in the eligibility criteria for Officers and Employees. It is further held that Regulation 2(m) shall not be inconsistent with Section 2(s) of The Gratuity Act. It is further observed that after 30 years of service. Officers have to be paid gratuity at the rate of 45 days wages i.e. “one and half month’s pay” for each completed year of service. It is further submitted that the Petitioner-Bank has taken (iii) (iv) erroneous plea that the Appellate Authority cannot interpret the provisions of Statute by conveniently ignoring the non-obstante clause in Section 14 of The Gratuity Act. It is further stated that the Bank Regulations having the force of law are, at the best, would act as a supporting legislation to The Gratuity Act, which is passed by the Legislature i.e. The Parliament. Therefore, the quasi judicial authorities are entitled to interpret, explain and sometimes read the provisions of the Act into the Legislation to avoid its illegality with save the same in the larger interest of the working class. It is further stated that in terms of Section 4(5) of The Gratuity Act, the Employees have to be offered better terms of Service Regulations, 2010 shall have to be consistent with the a view to (V) gratuity. Hence, the provisions of The Gratuity Act. It is further stated that the Petitioner-Bank is insisting the Bank Officers to take gratuity either under the Gratuity Act or under the Service Regulations, 2010 though the Regulations are discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal, which cannot be accepted. It is finally stated that this Court interfere in Certiorari proceedings only when there is any apparent error on the face of the record, but not latent error in law. Accordingly, Respondent can No.4 prays for dismissal of the petitions. 6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AT THE BAR- (a) On behalf of the Petitioner-Bank: Ms.V.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the Petitioner Bank, would submit that, certainly, the Bank Officers are entitled to get the benefit of gratuity either under the Service Regulations 2010 or under The Gratuity Act, whichever is higher, under the mandate of Section 4(5) of the Gratuity Act. (i) (ii) Learned counsel would further submit that the learned Appellate Authority conveniently picked the definition of “wage”, from The Gratuity Act which 9 includes DA and followed the method of calculation as per Regulation 72, only to avoid the upper cap of Rs. 10,00,000/- under The Gratuity Act. (iii) Learned counsel further submits that this type of clubbing the provisions from different acts, especially when there is no ambiguity in the definition of “pay” under the Service Regulations, 2010 is not tenable under law. (iv) Learned counsel would further submit that the calculation of 45 days per every completed year of service above 30 years does not stand for legal scrutiny, since the provision itself is vivid to that effect. (v) Learned counsel finally submits that the Respondents 1 and 2 have wrongfully interpreted the provisions of the Service Regulations,2010 as well as The Gratuity Act, which is illegal. Learned Counsel finally prays to allow the petitions. (b) On behalf of Bank Officers (Respondent No.4): (i) Sri T.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 would submit that there cannot be any discrimination in calculating the gratuity for Employees and Officers of the Bank. For the sake of calculation of gratuity, pay shall be taken along with DA, which is available to the employees. The approach of the Bank to different criteria for employees and officers in fixing the gratuity is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned counsel placed reliance on Judgment of a Coordinate Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court which was confirmed in Writ Appeal, against 10 which, the Special Leave Petition preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dismissed at the stage of admission. Learned counsel would also submit that there (ii) are no grounds warranting interference of this Court, particuiariy, by way of Certiorari. The interpretation given by the Appellate Authority for calcuiation of gratuity beyond the service of 30 years as 45 days, instead of 15 days is not in accordance with law, to that extent, the impugned orders can be set aside. (C) Reply of the Petitioner-Bank: Refuting above submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition, preferred by the Bank against the judgement Court of Madhya Pradesh, at the stage of admission. Merger is not applicable. Learned counsel for the Petitioner the of High So, the Doctrine of brought to the notice of the Court that different High Courts i.e. High Court of Bombay, High Court of Chhattisgarh, disagreed with the view of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and upheld the version of the Bank, against which, the Bank Officers preferred appeals before Three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court. But no interim order of stay has been granted and matters are coming up for final hearing. 7. Having heard the submissions on both sides, the points that would emerge for determination are: {\)Whether the impugned orders directing the bank to take 45 days of pay for every completed year of se/v/qe beyond 11 30 years of service to the bank officers while fixing gratuity is in accordance with Service Regulations, 2010? (ii) Whether the gratuity of the bank officers can be fixed by clubbing the provisions of Service Regulations, 2010 as well as The Gratuity Act, to say that the pay includes DA? (Hi) Whether fixing different norms for calculation of gratuity to the Bank Employees and Bank Officers is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution? (iv) Whether a Writ of Certiorari seeking quashment of impugned orders is maintainable? POINT No.(i): The grievance of the Bank Officers is that, while calculating gratuity per the Reg. 72 of Service Regulations, 2010, the Petitioner-Ban k has not taken into account the DA received by the Officers during their service. The Petitioner-Bank has computed the gratuity as per Regulation 72 of Service Regulations, 2010 and also calculated the gratuity under the provisions of The Gratuity Act. As the Bank Officers would get higher amount under Gratuity Act, the gratuity is fixed at Rs. 10,00,000/- which is the upper cap, as per the 8. as Act. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the Bank Officers, who were shown Respondent No.4 in all the writ petitions, after receiving the amount, approached the Controlling Authority, by filing a petition under The Gratuity Act. The Respondent No.2, who is the Controlling Authority has considered their claim and directed the Bank to pay the difference amount of gratuity by as "1 12 calculating pay including DA and ordered to interest of 10%. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner-Bank pay the differential amount with preferred appeal the appeal Controlling Authority by interpreting of the gratuity beyond one half of a month’s pay” (which is 15 days) before the Respondent No.1. The Appellate Authority dismissed and also modified the order of the Regulation 72 (3) First Proviso, relating to entitlement 30 years of service at the rate of for each completed year of service days for each completed year beyond 30 years of service. one and half month pay” taking it as 45 as 10. There is no dispute about the fact that the calculated the gratuity of the Bank Officers by two methods Service Regulations, 2010 and another under the It is also not in dispute that the Bank Officers, Respondent No.4 in all the four writ petitions, have The Gratuity Act, which is the higher amount. Petitioner-Bank has one is under the provisions of The Gratuity who are shown as received the amount under Act. 11. It IS apt to mention that the learned Appellate Authority has interpreted Regulation 72(3) First Proviso, completed year of service for the as “one and half month” i.e. 45 days per every persons, whose service is beyond the period of 30 years. As Respondent No.4 fairly conceded that the interpretation of learned Appellate Authority on that point is erroneous. It does not require any further discussion. It is relevant to extract Regulation 72(3) First Proviso of Service Regulations, 2010, hereunder: 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 a 13 month's pay for each completed years of service beyond 30 years. ” In the light of the language employed in the proviso, it is very clear that an Officer or an Employee, who has completed service of more than 30 years, is eligible for gratuity for an additional amount at the rate of “one half of a month’s” pay for each completed year of service beyond thirty years. There is no ambiguity in the expression "one half of a month’s pay”. But the learned Appellate Authority has interpreted the same in his own way without any legal basis as “one and haif month pay” i.e. 45 days. On the face of it, the order is not sustainable since it is an erroneous way of interpretation. 12. POINT Nos.(ii) and (iiiT Before delving into these points, the necessary details relating to services of Bank Officers are referred in tabular form infra: 13. W.P.No Name of the party Date of joining Date of retirement Period of service Gratuity as Gratuity as per The Gratuity Act per Regulation 72(3) Rs.9,46,720/- 1283/ C.Madhava Reddy 01.03.1983 31.07.2015 32 years 4 months Rs. 10,00,000/- 2018 1284/ P.Dasaradha Reddy 20.01.1984 31.08.2015 31 years 7 months Rs.8,23,840/- Rs. 10,00,000/- 2018 1295/ B.Reddapa Reddy 18.10.1982 30.09.2014 31 years 11 months Rs.9,57,440/- Rs. 10,00,000/- 2018 1683/ K.Chenchi Reddy 19.10.1982 31.10.2015 33 years Rs.9,21,855/- Rs. 10,00,000/- 2018 14. Coming to the crux of the issue, whether the pay for the purpose of gratuity to the Bank Officers shall include DA or not is concerned, the Appellate Authority held that the Regulation 72(3) is not inconsistent with the provisions of The Gratuity Act. Accordingly, the learned Authority has taken 14 the definition of “wages” from The Gratuity Act and calculated the gratuity under the Service Regulations, 2010. It is vivid that the Appellate Authority has interpreted the Regulation 72(3) by adding something to the definition of pay” as per Regulation 2(m), which is contrary to the scheme of the Regulations. Since the definition of “pay” under Regulation 2(m) is clear to the effect that it does not include DA, the learned Appellate Authority took aid of the definition of “wages” under The Gratuity Act and further, fixed the gratuity as per the Regulations. There is a merit in the contention that the Bank Officers are entitled to get the gratuity either as per the terms of The Gratuity Act or in terms of the Regulations, whichever is higher, but it cannot be done by picking out one or the other provisions from both The Gratuity Act and the Service Regulations, 2010, which is not permissible under law. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the gratuity has to be taken as a package but not by clubbing the provisions of the Service Regulations, 2010 as well as The Gratuity Act. Such type of calculation is unknown to law. It is argued on behalf of the claimants that there cannot be any discrimination in fixing the gratuity for the Employees and Officers. For better understanding, this Court perused the provisions of the Regulations relating to the definitions of “Employees” and the “Officers classes. It is apt to extract the Regulation 2(j) and 2(1), which reads as under: “2(j) "Employee" means an employee of the Bank as classified under clauses (b) and (c) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 3, and includes such employee whose services are lent to other organizations under regulation 75; 15. as different 15 2(1) "Officer" means an officer of the Bank as classified under Clause (a) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 3;" 16. The classification of Officers and Employees under Regulation No.3 is as follows: “3. Classification of officers and employees. - (1) The officers and employees of the Bank shall be classified follows, namely,- as (a) Group 'A' - Officer Junior Management (i) Scale I (Assistant Manager) Middle Management (ii) Scale II (Manager) (iii) Scale III (Senior Manager) Senior Management (iv) Scale IV (Chief Manager) (v) Scale V (Assistant General Manager) Explanation. - For the purpose of these regulations, the Chairman may designate the officer, as Branch Manager, Regional Manager or General Manager, depending on the work or functions assigned and the scale of the officer, (b) Group 'B'- Office Assistants (Multipurpose), (c) Group 'C - Office Attendants (Multipurpose).” Coming to the facts of the present case, the claimants in these petitions are falling under Regulation 3(1)(a)(ii), since they all are the Scale IV- Managers under Senior Management who are categorized as Group-A Officers. Whereas, Group-B and Group-C are employees. In the light of the 17. 16 language employed to classify the Employee and the Officer, there is a clear distinction between the two classes. Hence, the argument that the Bank Officers and Employees are one and the same, falls to ground since these two classes cannot be compared as they do not stand under same footing. It is not uncommon to see that the varying needs of different classes of persons often require separate treatment. Sometimes, the very same treatment to unequals also amount to inequality. So, a reasonable classification is always permissible. As such, the question of either discrimination between the Bank Officers and Bank Employees or seeking parity cannot be entertained. In that view, the argument that Regulation 72 (3) Second Proviso, is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, holds no water. 18. At this juncture, it is equally important to have a glance at the provisions of the Gratuity Act. It is profitable to refer Sec. 2(e) which defines “ "2(e) "employee" means any person (other than apprentice) employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or In connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity." The Gratuity Act does not specify the Officers as a separate category. There is no such distinction between Officer and Employee under the Gratuity Act. The one and only category available under Gratuity Act is “Employee”. employee”: an 17 Keeping this in mind, this Court shall scrutinize the scope of Regulation 72 of Service Regulations, 2010 and Sec. 2(s) of the Gratuity Act and for quick reference, both provisions are extracted hereunder: “72. Gratuity - (1) An officer or employee shall be eligible for payment of gratuity either as per the provisions of the 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: 19. 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 that case to that extent only. (3) 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: 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 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 purposes of calculation of the gratuity shall be the average of the basic pay (100%), dearness allowance and special 1 18 allowance and officiating allowance payable during the 12 months preceding death, disability, retirement, resignation termination of service, as the case may be." Section 2(s) of Gratuity Act: "wages" means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employments and which are paid or are payable to him in cash and includes dearness allowance but does not include any bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance." or 20. As discussed supra, it is quite ciear that the Gratuity Act does not distinguish Employee and Officer. The Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act speaks about the beneficiaries under the Act intend to take aid of the definition of as one category. If the Bank Officers wages” (which includes DA) under Section 2(s) of The Gratuity Act, they have to keep in mind that the gratuity to any Officer or any Employee, cannot be more than Rs. 10,00,000/- which is the upper cap under the Gratuity Act. 21. In the present case, the learned Appellate Authority has taken the definition of “wages” from The Gratuity Act under Section 2(s), but ordered the Bank to pay the gratuity without considering the upper cap i.e. Rs. 10,00,000/- under The Gratuity Act. The material on record would show that the Service Regulations, 2010 which are very much applicable to the case of the Bank Officers, classified the Bank Officers as a separate category and also attached the Proviso, with minute detail that "the last pay drawn". Whereas, in case of the Employees, their pay includes DA and officiating allowances. In that view, the Regulation 2(m) which defines “pay” does not suffer from any infirmity and not required to be interpreted any further, by using words that it also includes 19 Dearness Allowance. The framers of the Regulations by assuming their power under RRB Act and with the prior approval of Government of India, in their wisdom purposefully used the words “pay” in case of Bank Officers means the “last pay drawn” and the pay in case of the Bank Employees for computing gratuity is average of the basic pay (100%) along with dearness allowance, special allowance and officiating allowance. 22. At this stage, it is beneficial to extract. Section 30 of RRB Act, which reads as follows; “30. Power to make regulations—4 [(1)] The Board of directors of a Regional Rural Bank may, after consultation with the Sponsor Bank and the 5 [National Bank], and with the previous sanction of the Central Government, 6 [by notification in the Official Gazette,] make regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act. or 7 [(2) Every regulation shall, as soon as may be after it is made under this Act by the Board of directors, be forwarded to the Central Government and that Government shall copy of the same to be laid before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the regulation or both Houses agree that the regulation should not be made, the regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that regulation.]’ In the light of the aforementioned procedure established by Law, the Service Regulations, 2010 have statutory force. cause a 23. In the light of the provision of overriding effect in both the statutes, this Court is of the considered view 20 that Gratuity Act is a general law which is applicable to IS eligible to have gratuity. Coming to the RRB Act it i every beneficiary, who IS a special law applicable to specific group of people i.e., the Officers or employees working under the Regional Rural Banks. In general sense, when two statutes have would prevail on the principle that the yet chose to At this juncture, it is Regulations, 2010, which as well as the Bank Employees to receive provisions of the Gratuity Act or as per Sub case, Regulation 72 never provisions of the Gratuity Act, as it does not restrict the beneficiaries to take gratuity under the Gratuity Act alone there is no upper ceiling to receive the gratuity under the Regulations. overriding effect, tatter of the two legislature was aware that it had enacted the earlier Act and enact the subsequent Act as a non obstante clause, beneficial to look into Regulation 72(1) of Service would enable the Bank Officers gratuity either as per the Regulation (ii), whichever is higher. Such being the be treated as inconsistent with the . Further, 24. The view expressed by the learned Appellate Authority that Regulation 2(m) shall not be inconsistent with Section 2(s) of the Gratuity Act correct. The reason being, there is IS not no such mandate under the Gratuity Act, which says the definition of wages under Section 2(s) of the Gratuity Act would prevail despite the Service Regulations of any beneficiary deals with the payment of gratuity. In addition to that, Sec. 4(5) of the Gratuity Act there is no embargo to the employee to shows, receive better terms of Gratuity in or contract exists with the employer. In absence of which, the individual, is entitled to gratuity under the Gratuity Act case of any award or agreement 21 with the upper cap of Rs. 10,00,000/-, though the entitlement may exceed Rs. 10,00,000/-. Viewed from any angle, it appears, the conclusion arrived by the learned Appellate Authority is only to avoid upper cap of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The claimants herein are falling under Sub-Regulation (2)(a) as the retired Bank Officers. They have received gratuity as per The Gratuity Act which is more beneficial to them. Coming to the method of calculating gratuity, Sub-Regulation (3) Second Proviso states that in respect of the Officers, gratuity is payable based on the “last pay drawn”. The language employed in Second and Third Proviso, is distinct, clear and there is no ambiguity which may warrant the Court to interpret in a different way by assuming and presuming the things. There is a clear distinction between Bank Officer and Bank Employee regarding “pay” for computation of gratuity. 25. 26. The “pay” for the purpose of the Bank Officers is concerned, it is worthy to extract the definition of the terms “salary’ Service Regulations, 2010, which reads as under: pay” and “emoluments” from the 2. Definitions. - (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; (o) "Salary" means aggregate of pay and dearness allowance; (i) "Emoluments" means the aggregate of salary and allowances, if any.” The Regulation 2(m) is clear that it does not include DA. There may be occasions where some emoluments may be classified as pay, then only, such 27. 22 emoluments are to be part of pay as per Regulation 2(m). The definition of ‘salary’ also does not suffer from any illegality. In fact, with all clarity, the salary means, aggregate of pay and DA. Coming back to Regulation 72(3) Second Proviso, the words “last pay drawn employee in clear terms, the “pay” for the purpose of gratuity shall include DA. are used. But, in respect of an 28. In that view, the manner in which, the Appellate Authority interpreted the Regulation 72(3) by taking the term “wages” from The Gratuity Act, i.e. by picking which is the best from two different statutes, simultaneously, is not the purport of Section 4(5) of The Gratuity Act. The Section 4(5) of The Gratuity Act reads as under; “Section 4(5): Nothing in this section shall affect the right of. employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer.” The language used in the proviso referred, simply says that the claimants are entitled to get gratuity either under the Gratuity Act or under the Service Regulations, 2010. In that premise, as the dispute in the present case is relating to the gratuity to a Bank Officer payable under the Service Regulations, 2010, the pay has to be computed strictly in terms of Regulation 2 (m), but not on the basis of the definition of “wages” under The Gratuity Act. an 29. 30. The very same question arose for consideration before Hon’ble Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court in W.A. No. 436 of 2020 and batch which are preferred by Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, against the Common Judgment in W.P.(S) No.790 of 2013 & connected cases decided by the I 23 learned Single Judge of High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, dated 28.01.2021, wherein after fruitful discussion, the learned Judge opined that the pay does not include dearness allowance, incase of Bank Officers. The learned Judge further observed in Para 25, which is extracted below: “25. It is settled law of interpretation that when the statute / provision of law is clear and there is no ambiguity, it has to be taken as it is. It is not within the realm of this Court to question the wisdom of the law makers, for the distinction they have sought to make with reference to the classification of the workforce, placing the 'Officers' and Employees' on different platforms and providing different modes of calculation. Option is always given to the Claimants to claim Gratuity either under the Act or under the Regulations, but never under both. When the calculation has to be made under the Regulations, each and every provision therein has to be given effect to, which cannot be widened by adding something more, taking it from elsewhere, whether it be with reference to the inclusive definition of the term 'wages' under Section 2(s) of the Act definition of the terms 'Salary' under Regulation 2(o) 'Emoluments' defined under Regulation 2(i) of the Regulations. This is absolute, irrespective of the fact whether the provision/law is a welfare legislation or not.” In this context, it is worthy to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of AFCONS Infrastructure Limited and Anr. vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited and Ors.\ wherein, it was observed that the principles of statutory interpretation are well settled. Where the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, the provision should be given its plan and normal meaning, without adding or rejecting any words. Departure from the literal rule, by making structural changes or substituting words in a clear statutory provision, under the guise of interpretation will pose a great risk as the changes may not be what the legislature intended or desired. Legislative wisdom cannot be replaced by the Judge's views. or or 31. (2010) 8 see 24 il 24 32. Learned counsel for Respondent No.4, in support of their arguments, placed reliance on the Order of a Coordinate Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in W.P.No.9182 of 2017, dated 06.09.2018 in All India Gramin Bank Pensioners Organization Unit Rewa v. Madhyanchal Gramin Bank and another^, wherein a Coordinate Bench held that Dearness Allowance forms part of pay for the calculation of gratuity to the Bank Officers for two Firstly, the learned judge opined that the three definitions of emoluments & "salary" are deeply interlinked and correct meaning of said expression can be drawn by combined reading of said provisions. The definition of “pay” refers about emolument whereas, salary which includes pay and dearness allowance. Thus, the 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. Secondly, the learned judge further opined that the provision relating to gratuity is a beneficiary provision especially involving the work force, hence, it should be liberally construed in favour of weak, under the rule of construction. Aggrieved thereby, the Madhyanchal Gramin Bank preferred batch of Writ Appeals No. 1316 of 2018 and its batch. The Hon’ble Division Bench dismissed the appeals confirming the Judgment of the learned Single Judge opining that they do not find any illegality in the order, they do not want to interfere as they are not sitting as an Appellate Court. reasons. pay' emolument” includes W. P. 9182/2017, W. P. 2299/2017 and W. P. 2877/2018 25 Feeling dissatisfied, the Madhyanchal Gramin Bank approached Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (C) No(s).11113- 11115 of 2019. The petitions were dismissed by the Hon’ble Two Judge bench, at the stage of admission, vide orders dated 07.05.2019. For ready reference, the order is extracted hereunder; “No case is made out to interfere with the impugned order(s) passed by the High Court.” 33. Per contra, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Bank would submit that the Doctrine of Merger is not applicable to the Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Learned counsel would further submit that subsequent to the Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court, the other High Courts across the country, differed with the view expressed therein, by upholding the plea of the Bank that the gratuity pertaining to Bank Officers, the pay does not include DA. Learned counsel placed reliance on such orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and Chhattisgarh in Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank V. The Appellate Authority^. It is a case where the claimants are retired Senior Managers having completed 33 years of service on superannuation, and have received Rs. 10,00,000/- under The Gratuity Act, since it is a higher figure than to the Regulations. After receiving the amount, the claimants sent applications to the Bank claiming that the provisions of The Gratuity Act wrongly applied, as they are entitled to gratuity in terms of Regulation 72 without there being any upper cap. The bank refused to accept their claims. Then, they have approached the Controlling Authority under Section 7(4) of were ^ (2020) see Online Bombay 70 26 The Gratuity Act. The Controlling Authority rejected the applications holding that the Bank had correctly applied the provisions of The Gratuity Act. Aggrieved by the said orders, the claimants preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. The said appeals are allowed directing the Bank to pay the differential amount of gratuity with 10% interest. Being aggrieved, the Bank preferred the writ petition before the High Court of Bombay. In the said case, the claimants placed a reliance on the Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhyanchal Gramin Bank’s case fsupra), on the ground that the SLP preferred by the Bank before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the Judgment of the Division Bench, is dismissed. (ii) Learned Judge upholding the plea of the Bank, observed that the observations of the learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court which was followed by a Coordinate Bench of Calcutta High Court that pay, salary and emoluments Regulations, are interlinked to each other, the defined under 2(m), 2(o) and 2(i) of the as so to give proper meaning to the definition “pay” read with Regulation-72, the Dearness Allowance was always part of pay and it was clear from the definition of wages as defined under Section 2(s) of The Gratuity Act, cannot be countenanced, because it would amount to reading something that is not specifically stated in the Second Proviso to clause (3) of the Regulation 72 of the Regulations, 2010. The learned Judge further opined that the pay for the purpose of gratuity includes basic pay, dearness allowance and officiating allowances in case of employees, but not for Officers. The reason being, the meaning of pay in 27 respect of the Bank Employees is clearly explained that it includes DA and officiating allowance. But coming to the case of the Bank Officers, the term “last pay drawn” means, the pay as per Regulation 2(m). Learned Judge further held that the purport of Second and Third Provisos to Regulation 72(3) of the Service Regulations, 2010 in the light of the definition of “pay” under Regulation 2(m) was not brought to the notice of the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Calcutta, as such, they held that even in the case of Officers, pay includes dearness allowance. So far as the point that the Two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition at the stage of admission preferred by the Bank is concerned, learned Judge placing reliance on Khoday Distilleries Ltd. V. Shri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd* opined that since the Court, refused to grant leave, the question of merger does not arise. As such, there is no hurdle for the court to consider the contentions of the bank and thereby allowed the petitions. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-Bank herein brought to the notice of this Court that the Bank Officers of Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank /Claimants carried the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(e)No.002238 of 2021. The matter was admitted on 07.05.2024 and coming up for final hearing before the Hon’ble Three Judge Bench, in which no interim order of stay has been granted. It is significant to mention that no 34. ''(2019) 4 see 376 28 contra material placed on record before this submissions. court disputing the said 35. As discussed supra, in case of Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Hon ble Division Bench also differed with the view expressed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh by accepting the version of the bank. For quick reference, the relevant paras of the judgment are extracted hereunder; 20. Here, it may be noted that definition of the term 'Salary’ under Regulation 2(o) speaks about the aggregate of 'Pay' and 'Dearness Allowance. When we come to definition of the term 'Emoluments' under Regulation 2(i), it is still wider, whereby it takes in 'Salary' (pay and dearness allowance) and other allowances, if any, as well It is for this reason, that we mentioned that the term 'Pay', 'Salary' and Emoluments' are situated in the form of a 'pyramid'; with 'Pay' at the top and 'Emoluments' at the bottom, placing 'Salary' in the middle. Going by the last limb of the definition of the term 'Pay' under ^^Qulation 2(m), if at all any portion of the 'Emoluments' is to be added on, alongwith the basic pay, to reckon the 'Pay' defined under Regulation 2(m), it has to be: (i) specifically classified as 'Pay'- (ii) under these^ Regulations. Hence only those portions of the Emoluments, if at all any extent is specifically classified to be reckoned as 'Pay' under the Regulations, it can be reckoned as 'Pay' to workout the Gratuity. Correctness of the observation of the learned S//7g/e Judge of the different High Courts (Madhya Pradesh / / High Court, Rajasthan High Court , (Jodhpur Bench) and Calcutta High Court) that the last limb of the definition of the Regulation 2(m) defining the term ‘Pay’i.e. "any part of the Emoluments’ which may specifically be classified as ’Pay' under these Regulations" will be rendered otiose- if the interpretation sought to be made by the Employer-Bank is accepted as there is no other proyision in the Regulations" to treat any part of the ot be added on to the basic pay and constitute the Pay as defined therein has to be considered in the said context. On turning back to Regulation 72(3), when the core proyision says that the amount of Gratuity payable to both the Officer or Employee shall be one month's Pay for eyery completed year of service or part in excess of six months, subject to maximum of 15 rnonth s pay; the 2 proyiso clearly stipulates that in the case of an Officer, he Gratuity is payable based on the last pay drawn whereas the 3 proyiso stipulates that in the case of an ‘Employee' it Cr^h’jtu^Jh^iiT'V'^’ calculation of the Gratuity shall be the ayerage of the basic High 21. pay (100%), dearness 29 allowance, special allowance and officiating allowance payable during the preceding 12 months. This shows that there is a vital distinction as envisaged by the framers of the Regulations that in the case of 'Officer', the expression used is only 'Pay' which means the basic pay; whereas in the case of 'Employee', the 'Pay' is further qualified by stipulating to take the average of the basic pay (100%), dearness allowance, special allowance and officiating allowance payable during the preceding 12 months. This is a decision taken by the framers to treat the 'Officers' and 'Employees' as of different segments, placing them on two different pedestals and to have the calculation effected adopting the two different methods. Considering this in the light of definition of the term Pay’ under Regulation 2(m), in the case of the ‘Officers’, since ‘Pay’ is the basic pay and nothing can be added on to the basic pay, the calculation has to be exclusively on the basis of the last pay drawn i.e. the last basic pay; whereas in the case of the ‘Employees’, the last limb of Regulations 2(m) comes into operation, whereby something else by way of dearness allowance, special allowance and officiating allowance (average during the preceding 12 months), are provided to be added on to the basic pay, (average of preceding 12 months) to constitute the ‘Pay’ / ‘reckonable element’ as provided in the 3''"' proviso to Regulation 72(3). This being the position, the stipulation given as to the mode of calculation s^arately in the case of ‘Officers’ and ‘Employees’ under the 2""' and 3^ provisos to Regulation 72(3) is in conformity with the provision to give effect to the definition of the term 'Pay', as defined under Regulation 2(m) of the Regulations”. conscious 36. In the light of aforementioned premises, this Court is of the humble view that “pay” in case of Bank Officers for the purpose of gratuity as per Regulation 72(3) does not include DA. In this regard, this court respectfully disagrees with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court. POINT No.fiv): 37. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another vs. Bikartan Das and Others^, categorically observed that a Writ of Certiorari is a highly prerogative writ and it cannot be issued for mere asking, unless the party seeking the relief under ^2023 INSC 733 30 Certiorari makes out a clear case. It shall be issued when from excess or failure to exercise jurisdiction and when there an order suffers IS an error on the face of the proceedings itself. Only a patent error can be corrected by issuance of Writ of Certiorari. The nature of the Court while dealing with Writ of Certiorari is supervisory but not appellate. 38. It is advantageous to refer the relevant para in Bikartan Das case (supra) to understand the ratio in the very words of Hon’ble Supreme Court: 65. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, is issued by a superior court in respect of the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions by another authority when the contention is that the exercising authority had no jurisdiction or exceeded the jurisdiction It cannot be denied that the tribunals or the authorities concerned this batch of appeals had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. However, the argument would be that the tribunals had acted arbitrarily and illegally and that they had failed to give proper findings on the facts and circumstances of the case. We may only say that while adjudicating a writ-application fora writ of certiorari, the court Is not sitting as a court of appeal against the order of the tribunals to test the legality thereof with a view to reach a different conclusion. If there is any evidence, the court will not examine whether the right conclusion is drawn from it or not. It is a well-established principle of law that a writ of certiorari will not lie where the order or decision of a tribunal or authority is wrong in matter effects or on merits. ” in (emphasis supplied) 39. In the case on hand, there is no factual dispute and hence, the question of adducing evidence does not arise. The point which is challenged is purely a legal question in connection with entitlement of gratuity to Bank Officers. In the light of the discussion and the findings arrived in Point Nos.(ii) and (iii), the impugned orders suffer from an error of law, which is apparent on the face of the record. Hence, the interference of this Court is warranted to set aside such orders. 31 40. To sum up; (i) The interpretation of the words under Regulation one half of a month’s pay” as 45 days by reading it as pay” is error on the face of the record. Clubbing of the provisions of Service Regulations 72(3) first proviso that one and half month’s (ii) 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. (iii) 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, (iv) The questions raised in the present cases are purely questions of law, as such. Writ of Certiorari is maintainable. The impugned orders do not stand for legal scrutiny. In the result, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand Sd/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (V) 41. closed. //TRUE COPY// SECT ON OFFICER To, 1. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 Hyderabad, ATI Campus, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad- 500 007, Telangana State 2. The Controlling Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad- 500 007, Telangana State. 3. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. . / / 4. One CC to M/s V Lima Devi Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to M/s M Indrani Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri T Koteswara Rao Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to The Deputy Solicitor General of India [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri K Lakshman Assistant Solicitor General of India [OPUC] 9. Three CD Copies / r / / GSC HIGH COURT DATED;30/04/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos. 1283,1284,1295 and 1683 of 2018 0 3 JUL 2025 )g Sec ALLOWING THE WPS WITHOUT COSTS