IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 15613 of 2026 along with CWP No. 15614 of 2026. Decided on : 28 th September , 2026 1. CWP No. 15613 of 2026. Krishan Lal Gautam ...Petitioner. Versus The Chairman, UCO Bank & Anr. ....Respondents. 2. CWP No. 15614 of 2026. Krishan Lal Gautam ...Petitioner. Versus The Chairman, UCO Bank & Anr. ....Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. CMP No. 25438 of 2026 in CWP No. 15613 of 2026. Heard. The application is allowed and the documents appended therewith are taken on record. CWP Nos. 15613 & 15614 of 2026. Challenge in these writ petitions is to the order dated 08.04.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘the Act’) allowing No.1's appeal against the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Act. In view of the nature of the petitioners’ grievance and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for reply from the respondents. The matters have accordingly been heard at this stage. 2. For convenience, reference hereinafter has been made to CWP No. 15613 of 2026. The petitioner, aged 72 years, was an employee of the respondent bank. He moved an application on 26.02.2019 seeking gratuity under the applicable provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act on the ground of his superannuation from the service of the bank on 26.12.2013 after rendering 35 years and 3 months of continuous service. His grievance was that the respondent had paid him Rs. 10,15,000/- towards his gratuity, whereas he was eligible to receive gratuity amount of Rs. 20,31,592/- as per the UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979. Thus, a short-fall in payment by Rs. 10,16,592 was alleged. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act passed an order on 24.01.2020 holding that the petitioner was entitled to the balance amount of gratuity in the sum of Rs.2,37,475/- within 30 days from the receipt of the order. 3 3. Respondent bank preferred an appeal assailing the above order before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was allowed on 08.04.2026 with the observation that an employee can claim gratuity either under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or under the UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, but cannot claim the benefit by intermixing the provisions of both the statutes/regulations. Relevant portion of the order passed by the Appellate Authority reads as under:- “Thus I am of the considered opinion that an employee, can claim gratuity either under the Acr of 1972 or under the UCO Bank Officers' Service regulations, but cannot claim the benefit by intermixing the provisions of both the statutes. The Controlling Authority erred in determining the gratuity based upon the intermixing of the provisions of Payment Gratuity Actand UCO Bank Officers' Service Regulations 1979. Accordingly, the order of the Controlling Authority- cum Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Chandigarh is set aside and the appeal of the bank management is allowed to this extent. The Controlling Authority- cum- Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Chandigarh shall, in accordance with this order, initiate further necessary proceedings/action, as per law, for refund of the amount deposited while filling the appeal.” Heard and considered the case file. 4. It was settled in Y.K. Singla versus Punjab National Bank and others2, (2013) 3 SCC 472, that an employee has to make a choice between the two schemes for drawing the benefit of gratuity. To this extent, the Appellate Authority did not commit any error in holding that employees 2(2013)3 SCC 472 4 can claim the benefit of gratuity either under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act or in terms of the UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979. However, after holding so, the Appellate Authority was required to remand the matter to the Controlling Authority for adjudicating the claims of the petitioners afresh in accordance with law. There is no clear direction in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority for remanding the matters to the Controlling Authority for a fresh decision on the claims of the petitioners for payment of gratuity to them, either by way of proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act or in terms of applicable regulations. In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that the matters shall stand remanded to the Controlling Authority for a fresh decision on the respective claims preferred by the petitioners, keeping in view the decision rendered by the Appellate Authority. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the Controlling Authority on 13th October, 2026. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 28th September, 2026. (jai)