Devendra Kumar Verma & Ors. vs Secy. Deptt. Of Financial ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 766 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 2
 
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 14739 of 2018
 
Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Verma & Others
 
Respondent :- Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nawal Kishore
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,D.K.Pathak
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora,J.

Hon'ble Virendra Kumar-II,J.

Heard Shri Nawal Kishore, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri D. K. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents.

Petitioners are the retired officers of Punjab National Bank ,who have filed the instant writ petition for a direction to the respondent No.1, i.e., Secretary, Department of Service, Ministry of Finance and Managing Director, Punjab National Bank for amending the Bank Officers Service Regulations with regard to the payment of gratuity amount as per rules applicable to the Central Government employees. Inter alia, it has also been prayed that the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment be directed to amend the date of effecting payment of gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2018 from 01.01.2016 instead of the present date of application, i.e., 29.03.2018.

According to the petitioner, they have superannuated from the Bank services in between 01.01.2016 to 28.03.2018 and at the time of superannuation they received gratuity amount as per option exercised by them for receiving the same as per the Officers Service Regulation and Payment of Gratuity Act. It has been submitted that prior to amendment dated 29.03.2018 in the Payment of Gratuity Act, the amount of gratuity was kept to Rs.10,00,000/-, therefore, a person, who superannuated in between 01.01.2016 to 28.03.2018 received gratuity maximum to Rs.10,00,000/-. After the amendment of Payment of Gratuity Act, the gratuity has been enhanced from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs. 20,00,000/- w.e.f 29.3.2018 for Central Government Employees, which has caused disparity in payment of gratuity to Central Government Employees and other employees retired in between 01.01.2016 to 28.03.2018. Aggrieved by the cut off date mentioned in the amended notification, the petitioners represented their causes to the respondents and prayed for payment of increased amount of gratuity with the ceiling of Rs.20,00,000/- as per the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act but as no action was taken, compelling the petitioners to file the present writ petition.

In contrast, on behalf of the Bank, it has been contended that the decision of enhanced gratuity with effect from 29.03.2018 is a policy decision taken by the Government of India, therefore, policy decisions taken by the Central Government cannot be interfered with and it is not within the domain of the Court to change the cut off date, therefore, the present writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

We have gone through the writ petition and the other materials on record.

A perusal of the Annexure-1 to the writ petition shows that the Ministry of Labour and Employment issued a notification which was published in the Gazette of India on 29.03.2018. By this notification Central Government amended the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act and in exercise of powers conferred by sub Section 3 of Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under the Act was fixed up to Rs.20,00,000/-. The date of application of the amended provision was made as 29th day of March, 2018.

It may be pointed out that petitioners themselves have stated in the writ petition that they have attained the age of superannuation in between 01.01.2016 to 28.03.2018, i.e., prior to coming into force of the amendment made in the Gratuity Act whereby the amount of gratuity was enhanced to Rs.20,00,000/-.

Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to mention that in umpteen number of judgments the court has held that it is not for the court to interfere in the matter relating to fixing of cut off dates as it is within the domain of the executive authority. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer some of the decisions in this context.

In Union of India Vs P.N. Menon and others, (1994) 4 SCC 68 the question again arose with regard to fixing of cut-off date for payment of gratuity and pension. In that case the cut-off date, which was fixed, was 30.9.1977. While allowing the appeals and repelling the challenge to the fixation of the said date, it was observed at pages 73-74 as under:

"Whenever the Government or an authority, which can be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, frames a scheme for persons who have superannuated from service, due to many constraints, it is not always possible to extend the same benefits to one and all, irrespective of the dates of superannuation. As such any revised scheme in respect of post- retirement benefits, if implemented with a cut-off date, which can be held to be reasonable and rational in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution, need not be held to be invalid. It shall not amount to "picking out a date from the hat, as was said by this Court in the case of D.R. Nim "V. Union of India in connection with fixation of seniority. Whenever a revision takes place, a cut-off date becomes imperative because the benefit has to be allowed within the financial resources available with the Government."

Again the Apex court in Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. N. Subbarayudu & Ors., reported in (2008) 14 SCC 702, held that the cut off date is fixed by the executive authority keeping in view the economic conditions, financial constraints and many other administrative and other attending circumstances. This Court is also of the view that fixing cut off dates is within the domain of the executive authority and the Court should not normally interfere with the fixation of cut off date by the executive authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary.

Recently, the aforesaid principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. M. Sethumadhavan & Ors.(Civil Appeal No. 1975 of 2010 decided on 29.3.2017) and held that fixation of cut-off date for extending the benefit of gratuity from a different date as compared to revision of pay-scale can neither be said to be arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to the present case, we find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Courts ordinarily refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter relating to policy decision in financial matters, which, undoubtedly and exclusively falls within the domain of the Government to prescribe the cut off date and the Court cannot compel to change the cut off date or a fixed particular date.

In view of the above, we find no good ground to exercise the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 22.5.2018

Mustaqeem