Paschim Banga Gramin Bank & Ors vs Chinmay Majumdar & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 133 Cal

12.01.2021
      25
 ns Ct.04
                                        F.M.A. 657 of 2020

                                  Paschim Banga Gramin Bank & Ors.
                                            Vs.
                                   Chinmay Majumdar & Ors.



              Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya,
              Ms. Surasri Baidya
                                        .... For appellants.

              Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy,
              Mr. Indranath Mitra,
              Mr. Subhankar Das
                                                   .... For respondents.

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appears on

behalf of appellants and submits, regulation 72 in Paschim

Banga Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service

Regulations, 2010 has three provisos under sub-regulation

(2). The third proviso is for additional inclusion of

dearness, special and officiating allowances payable during

12 months preceding death, disability, retirement,

resignation or termination of service, as the case may be,

for calculation of gratuity in respect of employee.

Respondents are officers.

He relies on judgment of Supreme Court in

Khoday Distilleries Limited - vs - Sri Mahadeshwara

Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal reported

in (2019) 4 SCC 376, paragraphs 18 to 24, to submit there

is no merger caused by order dated 7th May, 2019 passed

by Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to

Appeal (C) no(s).11113 - 11115/2019 (Madhyanchal

Gramin Bank & anr. Etc. - vs - All India Gramin Bank

Pensioners Organisation Unit, Rewa Etc.). As such,

decision of the High Court, not interfered with on dismissal

of the Special Leave Petitions, does not cause the Madhya

Pradesh High Court's judgment as have been confirmed by

the Supreme Court and be a binding precedent on this

Court. He then relies on judgment dated 6th January,

2020 of a learned single Judge of Bombay High Court,

Nagpur Bench in, inter alia, Writ Petition no.8272 of

2018 (Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank - vs - The

Appellate Authority and Anr.), paragraph 18. He also

relies on Maniruddin - vs - Chairman of Dacca reported

in 40 CWN 17 to submit, statutory bodies have no power to

do anything unless power to do so is conferred by statute.

Here the proviso is clear in the context of its application to

employees only.

Mr. Saha Roy, learned advocate appears on

behalf of respondents and refers to Vidarbha Konkan

Gramin Bank (supra) and submits, distinction in second

and third provisos to regulation 72(3), in light of definitions

under regulation 2, was not brought to notice of High

Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Calcutta when it was held

that calculation of gratuity in the case of officers under

said regulations ought to be based on inclusion of dearness

allowance in expression, pay.

Mr. Saha Roy will be further heard on

adjourned date. List on 15th January, 2021.

(Arindam Sinha, J.)

(Subra Ghosh, J.)