Telangana High Court
V N Janarhdhan Rao vs The Commissioner For Cooperation And ... on 31 January, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Writ Appeal No.1147 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2022 in W.P.No.12969 of 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
2. Heard Sri Goda Shiva, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation, appearing for respondent No.1; Sri Rohit Pogula, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3; Sri Guru Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 & 5 .
3. Learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the appellant was initially appointed as Supervisor with the respondent-Bank in the year 1965 and he has tendered his resignation to the post of Supervisor in the year 1972. Later, he was reappointed as Supervisor with the respondent-Bank on ::2:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1147_2023 28.10.1978. Thereafter, the respondents have issued a notice on 27.05.1981, as to why the services of the appellant could not be terminated. Aggrieved by the issuance of the notice by the respondent-Bank, the appellant has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.4405 of 1981 and this Court was pleased to grant interim directions on 24.06.1981 to continue the appellant in service. Learned counsel further contended that finally W.P.No.4405 of 2001 was allowed by this Court vide order, dated 27.01.1981 and by virtue of the order passed in the said writ petition, the appellant was allowed to continue in service. Finally, the appellant has retired from service on attaining the age of super annuation on 31.12.2002. The grievance of the appellant was that after retiring from service, the respondent-Bank have issued a proceedings on 16.05.2003, wherein, the respondent-Bank was trying to recover an amount of Rs.1,24,305.85 ps., and the increments were also not extended to him from 1994 to 1998 and the terminal benefits were also not settled. In those set of ::3:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1147_2023 circumstances, the appellant had approached this Court by filing the subject W.P.No.12969 of 2003 challenging the impugned order, dated 16.05.2003, wherein, the respondent-Bank had recovered an amount of Rs.1,24,305.85 ps., from the retiral benefits of the appellant and the appellant was challenging the action of the respondents in not paying interest for delayed disbursement of gratuity in terms of Section 7 (3) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act') and also sought for direction of granting increments to the appellant from the period where the appellant was denied increments. The learned Single Judge was pleased to partly allow the writ petition and set aside the recovery proceedings by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.G and others 1.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that in respect of prayer Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the learned Single Judge has rejected the 1 AIR 1999 SC 1849 ::4:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1147_2023 claim of the appellant, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that as per Section 7 (3A) of the Act, if there is any delay in disbursing the gratuity, the employee is entitled to be paid interest as determined by the Central Government. The appellant has retired from service on 31.12.2002, whereas the gratuity was disbursed only after disposal of the writ petition preferred by the appellant i.e., on 22.05.2023, which would mean that there was a delay of nearly two (2) decades in disbursing the gratuity. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ appeal by directing the respondent- Bank to grant interest for the delayed disbursal of gratuity to the appellant in terms of Section 7 (3A) of the Act and also to release increments from the year 1994 to 1998, in addition to the relief granted by the learned Single Judge. Admittedly, no reasons were assigned as to why the increments of the appellant were denied from that relevant point of time.
::5:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_1147_2023
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents had contended that the 'bye-laws of a society cannot be enforced' and the issue was squarely covered by the judgment of Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Amalapuram v. N. Seetharama Raju 2, wherein it has held that the contractual obligations for release of increments cannot be enforced under Article 226. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant in respect of grant of interest for delayed disbursal of gratuity and also for releasing the increments in favour of the appellant. Learned counsel further contended that the alleged increments were stopped by the respondent-Bank in the year 1994. While, the appellant was in service, he has not made any claim for release of increments, it is only after retirement, the appellant has approached this Court seeking release of increments, which is not 2 AIR 1990 A.P 171 ::6:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1147_2023 permissible. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that the learned Single Judge ought to have granted interest to the appellant for the delayed disbursal of the gratuity in terms of Section 7 (3A) of the Act. As far as increments are concerned, normally the increments are granted to the employees, if there are any sufficient reasons to stop the increments, the increments can be stopped by passing appropriate orders. In the instant case, the respondents have not come up with any valid reasons as to why the increments of the appellant were stopped from the year 1994-1998. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if the present writ appeal is disposed of directing the respondent-Bank to pay interest for the delayed disbursal of gratuity in terms of Section 7 (3A) of the Act and also to release the increments from the year 1994 to 1998, however, as far as increments are ::7:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1147_2023 concerned, the appellant is not entitled for interest of delayed disbursal of increments, as admittedly, he has not made any claim earlier when the increments were denied in 1994.
7. With the above said observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ______________________________________ __ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 31.01.2024 prat ::8:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1147_2023 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Writ Appeal No.1147 of 2023 Date: 31.01.2024 prat