Sunday, 07, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Distt. Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Unnao, ... vs Rabindra Nath Pandey And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 434 ALL

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 434 ALL
Judgement Date : 5 January, 2024

Allahabad High Court

Distt. Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Unnao, ... vs Rabindra Nath Pandey And Others on 5 January, 2024





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1162-DB
 
Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- Distt. Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Unnao, U.P. Thru. Its General Manager And Others
 
Respondent :- Rabindra Nath Pandey And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Anupama Bhadauria,C.S.C.,Nadeem Murtaza
 

 
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
 

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Prashast Puri, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel assisted by Shri Gaurav Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Anupama Bhadauria, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The instant Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order rendered by the Writ Court in Writ-A No. 6879 of 2020 whereby post retiral dues admissible to the respondent no. 1 have been allowed along with an interest payable @ 7.1 % per annum. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the entitlement of post retiral dues but on account of some financial difficulties faced by the bank, the submission put forth is confined to the quantum of interest imposed. It is urged that entitlement under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 of course is payable along with the interest, as per statutory provisions but so far as the other dues regarding which delay has occurred particularly leave encashment etc, the interest awarded by the Writ Court may be exempted.

4. Retiral dues, as a matter of fact, is an earning of an employee out of the satisfactory services rendered towards the employer. This entitlement is a valulable asset of cash property to secure the retiral life of an employee. Every organisation employing personnel must be vigilant to have an advance mechanism of settling such dues right at the end of the tenure of employees so that there is no litigation or any unrest or uncertainty in this regard. A large number of cases are coming to the Courts of law simply on account of delay which the employers indulge into to release the retiral dues after long delays. The retired employees have no option but to litigate for their legitimate claims. This is an unhealthy practice. Every employer is duty bound to comply all the formalities with regard to the release of retiral dues in favour of the employees much in advance and should not leave any uncertainty prevailing upon the entitlements which fall due. The payment of retiral dues immediately on attaining the age of superannuation must be ensured without fail.

5. Once it is not disputed that the respondent no. 1 is entitled to all the dues as have been claimed, the Writ Court while allowing the writ petition has rightly sadled the employer with the liability of interest particularly when there is a lot of mental agony and loss incurred by an employee in the matter of litigation.

6. The only plea to deny the amount of gratuity is that the Bank has incurred certain losses on account of which the amount of gratuity payable to the respondent was limited to 3.5 lakhs and the amount of leave encashment though not disputed is stated to be not payable on account of the losses incurred by the Bank.

7. Both the pleas have been turned down by the Writ Court by recording cogent and plausible reasons. The reasons assigned by the Writ Court in the aforesaid consideration do not suffer from any illegality and the view taken by the Writ Court deserves to be upheld.

8. Having regard to the judgment rendered by the Writ Court being elaborate and well considered, this Court does not find it a fit case for interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court.

9. The appeal is accordingly rejected.

10. The interest payable as directed by the Writ Court is however reduced to 6% per annum and to this extent the impugned judgment is modified.

Order Date :- 5.1.2024

DiVYa

[Brij Raj Singh, J] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J]

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter