Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Andhra Pragathigrameena Bank vs G. Ayyavariah on 21 March, 2023
Bench: D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, V Srinivas
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
and
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS
I.A.No.2 of 2022
in
WRIT APPEAL No.720 of 2022
ORDER: (per D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J)
This application is filed for suspension of the
operation of the Judgment dated 06.05.2022 passed in
W.P.No.34888 of 2011.
2) This Court has heard Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned
counsel for the respondent.
3) The petitioner-appellant is The Andhra Pragathi
Grameena Bank. The respondent is a former employee, who
is removed from service after an enquiry is conducted. In the
enquiry the gratuity was withheld. Questioning the same he
has filed the Writ Petition, which was allowed. Learned
counsel for the petitioner argued the matter at length. It is
her submission that the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (for
short "the Act") governs the Writ Appellant Bank and
pursuant to Section 30 of the Act service regulations were
framed. These service regulations, according to the learned
counsel, permit the forfeiture of the gratuity. Since the
employee was terminated from service, she argued that as
per the relevant clause the forfeiture is valid. It is also
submitted that the learned single Judge committed an error
in holding that the Payment of Gratuity Act would prevail
over the regulations etc., that were framed. It is submitted
that the special Act/Rules applicable to the Rural Bank,
whereas the Payment of Gratuity Act is a general Act
applicable to all employers and employees. Therefore, it is
stated that this is the special law, which would prevail over
the general law. It is also pointed out that the learned
counsel for the writ petitioner relied upon a judgment of the
High Court of Bilaspur in Siyaram Basanti v Chhattisgarh
Rajya Gramin Bank and 3 others1 which relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in
Jaswant Singh Gill v Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., and
others2. According to the learned counsel this judgment was
overruled in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi
Coalfields Ltd., v Rabindranath Choubey3. It is also
WPS No.503 of 2020
(2007) 1 SCC 663
(2020) 18 SCC 71
submitted that the order of termination passed in this case
was not challenged and it has become final. Therefore,
learned counsel submits that there are important issues to
be determined in the hearing of the Writ Appeal and unless a
stay is granted and the status quo is preserved irreparable
loss would be caused to the petitioner-appellant.
4) In reply to this, learned counsel for the
respondent-writ petitioner argues that the impugned order is
correct and is in accordance with the law. It is submitted
that the Payment of Gratuity Act would prevail over the
regulations framed under the Regional Rural Banks Act,
1976 and that the forfeiture is incorrect. It is also pointed
out that Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act contains a
non-obstante clause and will, therefore, prevail over the
Regulation 72 etc. It is also pointed out that the writ
petitioner-respondent has rendered years of service and if the
gratuity is stayed he will be put to serious loss. Therefore, it
is prayed that the stay should be refused.
5) In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner-
appellant also relied upon P. Rajan Sandhi v Union of
India and another4. In this case it is held that the Working
Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of
Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, would
prevail over the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
6) This Court after considering both the
submissions notices that the punishment of removal from
service was imposed on 14.01.2011. It is not challenged. In
the case of P. Rajan Sindhi v Union of India and another5
it is held that the Payment of Gratuity Act is a general Act,
whereas Working Journalist Act is a special enactment. In
the case on hand a similar argument is advanced by the
counsel for the Writ Appellant and this Court is prima facie
satisfied with the same. This requires deeper investigation to
finally decide if the Regional Rural Banks Act / Regulations
being a special law will prevail over the general law (the
Payment of Gratuity Act). It is also important to note that
the judgment of the learned single Judge in Siyaram
Basanti case (1 supra) relied upon Jaswant Singh gill (2
supra). This order was also overruled in Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., case (3
(2010) 10 SCC 338
(2010) 10 SCC 338
supra). This case was dealing with payment of gratuity also
albeit to an employee, who removed from service against
whom departmental proceedings are pending.
7) In these circumstances, this Court is of the
opinion that the status quo ante should be preserved.
Therefore, there shall be an interim suspension of the order
dated 06.05.2022 passed in W.P.No.34888 of 2011.
8) Accordingly, this Interim Application is allowed.
No costs.
__________________________
D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J
________________
V. SRINIVAS, J
Date:21.03.2023
Ssv
