APHC010032892018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 1470/2018 Between: 1. SATPAGIRI 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-500007, TELANGANA STATE. 2. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 AND ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), ATI CAMPUS, VIDYANAGAR, HYDERABAD-500007, TELANGANA STATE. 3. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI. 4. SRI I JAGADEESWARA RAO, RETIRED MANAGER, SAPTHAGIRI GRAMEENA BANK, DOOR NO. 2-3-101/2, BESTA BAZAR, NEAR HDFC BANK, MAHABUBABAD, WARANGAL WARANGAL DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE-506101. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T KOTESWARA RAO 2. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: <....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 2 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-36/35/2017-E1.” 2. Heard Ms.V.Umadevi, learned Standing Counsel for Petitioner-Bank. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for Petitioner– 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 allowed. 4. As rightly put by the learned Standing Counsel for Petitioner - 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. 5. 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 3 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 allowed. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.12.2017 in Case No.PGA-36/35/2017-E1, is hereby set aside. 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:26.09.2025 Asr 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No.1470 OF 2018 Dt.26.09.2025 Asr