[Cites 25, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Managing Director Madhya Pradesh Rajya ... vs P.N. Maheshwari on 12 December, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T J AB AL P UR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 3220 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT HEAD OFFICE T.T. NAGAR BHOPAL
Versus
SHRI K.C. SHAH AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 7671 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
V. A. ROJINDAR AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7672 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
V. K. JADHAV AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7673 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
NISHANT GAUND AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7674 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
R. R. DAKHEDA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7675 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
MOHAMAD TAHIR AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
2
WRIT PETITION No. 7676 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. KETHARIN DEVID AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7677 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
RANJAN SINGH CHAUHAN AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7678 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. MEENA SHARMA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7679 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
A. M. SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7680 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
P. C. SONI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7682 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7683 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
Y. D. GOUTAM AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
3
WRIT PETITION No. 7688 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
YOGESH KUMAR PATEL AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7689 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
SITARAM SAHU AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7692 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
KAMLESH KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7694 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
PRADEEP NIGAM AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7696 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
T. B. SINGH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7703 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
VINOD KUMAR SHUKLA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7716 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
T. A. KHAN AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
4
WRIT PETITION No. 7718 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
KANCHAN KALELE AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7720 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
K. K. SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7725 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
V. K. VERMA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7727 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
R. B. BANSAL AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7728 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
A. K. DIXIT AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7730 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
M. K. BHATT AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7731 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
5
M. L. BHAVSAR AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7732 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
R. P. SONI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7734 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
G.P. PANDIT AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7737 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
SETU MADHAVAN NAIR AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7739 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
R. N. PANDEY AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7745 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
V. G. NARVELKAR AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7748 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
R. L. VISHWAKARMA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7750 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
6
O. P. SONI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7753 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
S. L. GUPTA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7758 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
NAJMUDDEEN GHODIWALA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7918 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. SUSHMA SINGH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7919 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
NILESH JOHN NELSON AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7920 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
BEDRAJ SHARMA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7921 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. SUDHA SONI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7923 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
7
B. C. BHINDA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7925 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
NARENDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7926 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
ASHARAM NEMA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7927 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
ARVIND VERMA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7928 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
R. K. VIJAYVARGIYA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7931 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
RAMPUJAN DUBEY AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7932 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
S. K. DAYARMANI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7934 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
8
SMT. SHOBHA UIKEY AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7935 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
S. N. BHUTDA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7936 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
RAHUL MANDPEY AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7937 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
KESHAV DESHPANDEY AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7946 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
M. K. PATAUDI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8077 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. NIRMALA SHROTI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8078 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI C.L. SWARNKAR AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8079 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
9
SHRI RADHESHYAM HARDIYA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8080 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. SORAM THAKUR AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8081 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. USHA MATHUR AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8082 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI G.S. PARMAR AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8089 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI K.K. BHARGAVA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8090 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI RAHUL MANDAPE AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8093 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI RAMJI SHARMA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8095 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
10
Versus
SHRI R.K. JAIN AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8096 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
MS. ANUPAMA CHOUHAN AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8097 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI L.N. AGARWAL AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8100 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. SUNITA PANDEY AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8101 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI V.K JAIN AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8102 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. SHOBHA SHARMA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8103 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. SITA SONI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8104 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
11
Versus
SHRI BHOLA PRASAD DWEVEDI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8109 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI S.K. SHARMA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8111 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. KESARI NIMADE AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9002 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI RAMSINGH YADAV AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9004 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. K.P. SIMPI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9005 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI PARASRAM HARDIYA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9006 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI K.C. SITOKE AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9010 of 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
12
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
MS. PRATIMA GHOSH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9012 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. PRABHA PANDEY AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9436 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. JYOTI KHANJHODE AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9439 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. LEELA SAHU AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9443 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI B.P. BANSAL AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9447 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. SAJANI ARGAL AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9450 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI A.K. YADAV
WRIT PETITION No. 9454 of 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
13
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI LEELADHAR BHATTD AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9455 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARADIT
Versus
SHRI R.P. PANDEY AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9457 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
A. K. VERMA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9459 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI L.D. PANDIT AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9460 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. VANDANA CHAPORKAR AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9461 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI B.K. SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9462 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI B.K. MAHESHWARI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9468 of 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
14
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI P.K. SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9474 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI R.S. RAJVAIDH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9483 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARIYADIT
Versus
SMT. SHUBHANGI SHEVDE AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9486 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI KAPIL KUMAR GANDHI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12172 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI M.D. NAAMJOSHI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12361 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
DINESH KUMAR BHATNAGAR AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12365 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
RAMPYAARE SEN AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12367 of 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
15
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
PRADEEP KUMAR BASAL AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12369 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
ALI UL HASAN AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12376 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
OMPRAKASH THAKUR AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12377 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
BHAIJI LAL CHOUHAN AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12380 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
H.K. CHATURVEDI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14593 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
Versus
LATE SHRI AARIF HASAN S/O LATE SHRI SIRAJUL HASAN
REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHRI AARIF HASAN 1. SMT. YA AND
OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14596 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
Versus
S.L. DWIVEDI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14599 of 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
16
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
Versus
D.P. SAXENA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14601 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
Versus
SMT. INDU SONDHIYA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14604 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
YOGESHCHANDRA TIWARI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14649 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
R.B. KUMBHARE AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14653 of 2025
MANANGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
S.K. NIWASKAR AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14654 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA SAHAKARI BANK MARYADIT
Versus
JAWAHAR LAL MISHRA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14656 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
P.N. MAHESHWARI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14658 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
17
MOHANLAL DUBEY AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14659 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
M.L. VYAS AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14661 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
USHA PUROHIT AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14662 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
IQBAL KHAN GAURI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14663 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
KISHORE KUMAR TANVAR AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14876 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK
MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI SHIVLAL SAHU AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20601 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
S.K. GUPTA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20608 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
18
GAURI JOSHI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20617 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
SHAKUNTALA VERMA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20620 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
V S SONPATKI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20631 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
BHARAT KUMAR BHARGAV AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20633 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR
Versus
SHRIPAD UDANDKAR AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20634 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
BALA SAHEB SHINDE AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20639 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
D P BAJPAYEE AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20640 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
19
SANDHYA PACHORI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20645 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI R C SHRIMALI AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20651 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
R K GUPTA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20654 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
P K SAHU AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20666 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
M.G. TEMBHURKAR AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20668 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
SMT. DEVKANYA CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20670 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
V.S. THAKUR AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 23321 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/12/2025
6:34:44 PM
20
R K PARASHAR AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 23324 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
K C SHARMA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 23327 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI
BANK MARYADIT
Versus
SHRI SHRINIWAS AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kapil Duggal with Ms. Dhruvika Yadav & Shri Gautam Singh
Kaurav - Advocates for the petitioner.
Shri Anil Lala with Ms. Raksha Patel - Advocates for the respondents for
their respective cases.
Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the intervenor/ respondent for his
respective cases.
ORDER
(Reserved on : 07.11.2025)
(Pronounced on : 12.12.2025)
The present batch of writ petitions has been filed by employer i.e. M.P.
State Cooperative Bank, Bhopal, challenging the orders passed by the
Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in the matter of the
respondent employees whereby, the said authority has granted gratuity to the
said employees as per the provisions of Revised Gratuity Rules (Staff Service
Regulation No.32) (for short SSR 32) of the petitioner Bank and awarding
balance gratuity to all the respondent employees who had earlier been granted
gratuity as per the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and now, the
Controlling Authority has awarded balance gratuity to the respondent
employees.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the cases
involve the question that whether SSR 32 would be applicable to respondent
employees or not and secondly whether the respondent employees could have
approached the Controlling Authority after 10 to 25 years after their retirement
and once having received the gratuity as per the provisions of Act of 1972,
without any objection and then suddenly coming up before the Controlling
Authority 10 to 25 years after their retirement and seeking balance gratuity as
per SSR 32.
3. The counsel for the petitioner Bank has vehemently raised argument on
the question of delay in claiming gratuity by arguing that as per the provisions
of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 so also the payment of Gratuity (Madhya
Pradesh) Rules 1973 (for short "M.P. Rules"), claim for gratuity has to be made
in a proper form firstly before the employer in terms of the rules 7(1) which has
to be read along with Section 7(1) of the Act of 1972. It is argued that the M.P.
Rules more specifically in Rule 7(1) provide for a limitation period of 30 days
from the date gratuity becomes payable and this request has to be made to the
employer.
4. In the second limb of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that as per Rule 7(1) of M.P. Rules, limitation is prescribed and as per
Rule 7(5) there is a provision for condonation of delay and for that the
employee has to show sufficient cause for the delay caused in preferring his
claim and any dispute in this regard shall be referred to the Controlling
Authority for its decision. It is contended that no application for condonation of
delay was preferred by the employee before the Controlling Officer, and hence,
the application was hit by limitation.
5. In the third limb of his submissions, the learned counsel has argued that
even though the Act of 1972 does not provide for any limitation to prefer a
claim for gratuity but Section 7(1) provides for application to be filed before the
employer and Section 7(2) though provides for obligation on the employer to
pay gratuity but once employer does not discharge the obligation, then, the
remedy is provided under Rules and that remedy contains specific limitation
period. Therefore, the scheme of the Act and the Rules is different. One (i.e. Act
of 1972) provides for substantive right accruing to the employee and obligation
on the employer and secondly, the scheme of M.P. Rules provides for remedy
and therefore, limitation being carved out in the remedy provided in the M.P.
Rules does not conflict with the substantive Act andtherefore, the application of
the respondent preferred before the Controlling Authority 10 to 25 years after
their retirement could not have been entertained by the Controlling Authority in
any manner. Therefore, on the aforesaid submissions it is prayed to allow the
writ petitions and set-aside the orders of the Controlling Authority.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even if the
question of delay is decided against the petitioner, then on merits the case of the
petitioner is that the petitioner Bank is a registered Cooperative Society and is a
Apex Bank in the three-tier corporate structure. It is argued that earlier the SSR
32 were framed for the petitioner Bank in the matter of grant of gratuity to its
employees which was effective from 01.01.1974 and the said SSR 32 did give
much more beneficial provisions to the employees as compared to Act of 1972
in the following manner:-
"(i) SSR 32 did not have any maximum ceiling of amount
but the only ceiling was substantive pay of 31 months.
(ii) The SSR 32 provided for 15 days to 30 days substantive
pay for each completed year of service depending upon the
tenure of service and an employee having completed 20 years
of service or more one month's substantive pay was to be paid
for each completed year of service."
7. In the aforesaid manner, the SSR 32 were more beneficial than the Act of
1972. However, it is contended that SSR 32 talked about "substantive pay"
whereas the Payment of Gratuity Act contemplates calculation of gratuity on the
basis of "wages" which is defined under Section 2(s). It is argued that under
Section 2(s) of the Act of 1972, wages are defined as all emoluments including
Dearness Allowance. However, on the other hand, SSR 32 does not define
substantive pay but if the definition of substantive pay as given in other
enactments is seen, then it would naturally exclude Dearness Allowance. It is
argued that in various cases, the employees had earlier got payment of gratuity
on the basis of substantive pay by excluding Dearness Allowance and HRA but
they again filed the cases before the Controlling Authority by seeking
calculation of gratuity on entire wages including Dearness Allowance and the
Controlling Authority has in those cases also, allowed payment of gratuity as
per the gross salary including Dearness Allowance which should not be given
stamp of approval by this Court and is required to be held to be illegal and
erroneous.
8. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that the SSR 32 was
substituted by amendment dated 28.12.1982 (Annexure P-5) and as per the said
amendment, now the Act of 1972 was to apply to all the employees and those
employees who had been appointed and were already in service on the date of
amendment, they were given option to opt either for the SSR 32 or Act of 1972
and all those employees who had opted, had been given gratuity as per SSR 32
and all those who had not given options, have been granted gratuity as per the
Act of 1972. However, various employees who have not given such option have
also got gratuity as per SSR 32, which should not be upheld by this Court.
9. The learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that in the year 1988,
the formula for calculation of gratuity in SSR-32 was amended vide order of the
Registrar dated 06.07.1988 which was issued by him in exercise of powers
under Section 55(1) of M.P. Corporative Societies Act.
10. Again in the year 2013 vide Annexure P-6, the Bank had decided to adopt
the new human resources policy in which the provision of gratuity was carved
out in paragraphs 24.2, 24.3, 24.4 and 24.5 which is in the same lines which was
applicable after amendment of 28.12.1982.
11. It is argued that subsequently vide Annexure P-7 dated 05.11.2020
another amendment was made in Service Regulations vide Annexure P-7
whereby the Act of 1972 was made applicable to all employees who entered in
the service of Bank after 18.11.1976. However, it is admitted that the said
amendment was put to challenge before this Court and this Court in W.P. No.
3459/2021 (Umesh Kumar Rahangdale Vs. M.P. State Cooperative Bank) has
held that the Amendment of 2020 would not apply to those employees who are
already in service as on 28.12.1982 and who had submitted option for being
covered under the SSR 32. The said order has been confirmed by the Division
Bench in W.A. No. 621/2024 and the Bank even unsuccessfully challenged the
said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 15588/2024.
12. However, it is argued that interference in the present matters be made and
apart from the objection as to delay which is applicable in all the cases, the
present matters broadly fall in the following four categories:-
"(i) Those employees who had opted for being covered
under SSR 32 after amendment dated 28.12.1982 and were
paid as per SSR 32 on the basis of basic pay as substantive pay
but now they have got orders for calculation of gratuity on the
basis of gross salary.
(ii) The second category of those employees who had not
opted for SSR 32 and were paid gratuity as per Act of 1972
and have now approached the Controlling Authority and have
got an order in the matter of payment of gratuity as per SSR 32
and that too, after calculating gross salary as substantive pay.
(iii) The third category is of Peons who admittedly were not
given any option to get covered by SSR 32 or by Act of 1972.
(iv) The fourth category is of some such employees who
were appointed after 28.12.1982 but still in their cases the
Controlling Authority has applied SSR 32."
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent employees has
vehemently argued that the petition of the Bank deserves to be dismissed. It is
argued that so far as applicability of SSR 32 is concerned, to pre-28.12.1982
appointees, it has been conclusively held by this Court in W.P. 3459/2021, as
upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that SSR 32 would apply to all the
employees appointed prior to 28.12.1982 and who had given option for being
covered under SSR 32.
14. The learned counsel for the respondent employees further argues that all
the employees had duly given options for being covered under SSR 32 and there
is not a single employee who had not submitted such an option. It is argued that
before the Controlling Authority, no objection was taken by the Bank that any
of the respondents had not submitted option and despite that he has approached
the Controlling Authority for the relief. Now, the Bank cannot be permitted to
argue such fact, which was not pleaded before the Controlling Authority.
15. The counsel for the respondent-employees further argued at length that
"substantive pay" would mean the actual pay which would naturally mean the
pay plus Dearness Allowance, and the contention of the Bank that substantive
pay would not include Dearness Allowance and HRA, cannot be accepted.
16. The counsel for the respondent employees had further argued that so far
as delay is concerned, the issue is covered by various judgments and it has been
conclusively held by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.563 of 2023
that the question of delay does not arise in the matter of payment of gratuity
because it is the obligation of the employer to pay gratuity immediately upon
retirement of the employee within 30 days. Once the respondents were not
granted rightful gratuity upon expiry of 30 days from their retirement, therefore,
no error has been caused by the Controlling Authority in entertaining the
applications of the respondent employees which may be filed 10 to 20 years
after their retirement, because in the substantive provision of Act of 1972, there
is no limitation and this aspect has been considered by the Division Bench.
17. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the respondent employees has
vehemently prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. It was further contended that all
the respondents are in the evening of their life and some have even expired and
are being represented by their legal representatives. Therefore, this Court should
give purpose and effect to the provisions of SSR 32 so that the respondent-
employees can get their rightful gratuity at least at this distance of time and the
Controlling Authority having done complete justice with the respondent
employees, no interference in the order of the Controlling Authority is
warranted.
18. Heard.
19. So far as the question of delay is concerned, which is involved in all these
cases, the said issue in relation to the petitioner bank was decided by this Court
in W.P. No.9008 of 2025 against the bank and thereafter, at instance of some
other employers (not the present petitioner), the said issue was raised before a
Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.563 of 2023, wherein the Division
Bench has held that there would be no question of applicability of limitation in
case of delayed approach to controlling authority for seeking gratuity or balance
gratuity. The Division Bench held that gratuity becomes payable only from date
the employee leaves employment and it has to be paid within 30 days thereafter
and when the period of 30 days expired, then once the substantive provision of
Act of 1972 does not contain any limitation, then limitation cannot be read into
the entitlement to claim gratuity. The Division Bench held as under:-
"18. The date on which the gratuity becomes payable to an
employee is laid down in Section 4(1) as the date on which
employee leaves employment after rendering continuous
service for not less than five years either on account of
superannuation, retirement, resignation, death or
disablement. Section 4 (1) is as under:-
"Section: 4 Payment of gratuity. (1) Gratuity shall be
payable to an employee on the termination of his
employment after he has rendered continuous service
for not less than five years, -
(a) on his superannuation, or
(b) on his retirement or resignation, or
(c) on his death or disablement due to accident or
disease:"
19. Aforesaid Section 4(1) of Act of 1972 when read in
juxtaposition to Section 7(2) & (3) and (3-A) makes it clear
that the date on which the gratuity becomes payable is the
date on which the employee leaves employment and it does
not depend on adjudication of claim of the employer in any
manner nor it is subjected to application to be made by
employee.
20. When coming to the provisions of M.P. Rules, it is very
clear to this Court that even said rules though provide for
limitation but the second part of Rule 7(5) provides in no
uncertain terms that no claim for gratuity under this Act
shall be invalid merely because the claimant failed to
present his application within the specified period. Though
it is mentioned that the dispute in this regard shall be
referred to the Controlling Authority for its decision but as
per substantive provision of Act laid down in Section 7, the
Controlling Authority is required to adjudicate the disputes
as per Section 4 of the Act of 1972 which are in the matter
of dispute as to the amount of gratuity payable to an
employee or as to the admissibility of claim of the employee
for payment of gratuity or as to the person entitled to
receive the gratuity and obligation is cast on the employer
to deposit with the Controlling Authority such amount as he
admits to be payable by him as a gratuity. Therefore, no
jurisdiction has been conferred on the Controlling Authority
to adjudicate any dispute of limitation or as to the claim of
the employee being barred by the limitation because such
provision runs directly in conflict with the substantive
provisions of the Act of 1972 which is a social security
welfare legislation and Section 7(2) & (3) and 3 (A) as
discussed above by us in this order do neither provide for
nor contemplate of any limitation period for claiming
gratuity and these provisions, more particularly after
amendment in the Act of 1972 in the year 1987, no doubt
remains that the liability to pay gratuity and the right to
receive gratuity matures on the date of exit from
employment and it does not mature on claim being made to
the employer and the adjudication of claim to be made by
the employer. The claim becomes perfect and mature on the
date of exit from employment and Controlling Authority will
adjudicate only if there is dispute as to admissibility of the
claim which may be in the matter of length of service, wages
last drawn, nature of employment, nature of exit from
employment, dispute as to forfeiture of gratuity as per
Section 4(6) etc. However, the act does not contemplate any
limitation for raising claim for payment of gratuity by an
employee nor it contemplates defeating such claim by any
law of limitation.
21. It is trite in law that limitation does not curtail
substantive right but curtails a remedy to claim substantive
right. When the remedy provided as per Section 7(4) of the
Act of 1972 is unconditional and does not depend on
limitation and more particularly Sections 7(2) (3) and (3A)
make it clear that the right would mature on the date of exit
from employment and it becomes obligatory for the
employer to deposit admitted claim of the employee with the
Controlling Authority within 30 days of exit from
employment then the employer cannot raise the ground of
limitation to defeat or defend such claim of gratuity.
22. The aforesaid issue of applicability of limitation in case
of delayed approach to the Controlling Authority was dealt
with by a Single Bench of this Court in detail in the case of
MP Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited versus
D.D. Singh reported in 2014(3) MPLJ 641 and by taking
note of the relevant legal provisions in the matter of
payment of gratuity, a single bench of this Court dealt with
the aspect of applicability of limitation as per the Rules of
1973 and held that since in terms of Rule 7(5), it has been
provided that no claim for gratuity under the act shall be
invalid only because the claimant failed to present his
application within the specified period, the claims for
gratuity cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
The Single Bench in the aforesaid case held as under:-
"12. So far the question of delay in approaching the
Authority is concerned, the Rule 7 of Payment of
Gratuity (M.P.) Rules, 1973 prescribes the method of
submission of application. Rule 7(5) provides that no
claim for gratuity under the Act shall be invalid
merely because the claimant failed to present his
application within specified period."
The aforesaid judgment stands affirmed in appeal by
the Division Bench in WA No. 2013/2014 (Gwalior).
23. In the case of Mohan Lal (supra) a Division Bench of
this Court has considered the aforesaid Section 7 of the Act
of 1972 as well as Rule 7 of M.P. Rules held that the claim
of the employee for gratuity would not be defeated by delay.
The Division Bench held as under:-
"6. We revert to the other ground which prevailed with
the Appellate Authority in holding that the claim-
petition was not maintainable because application filed
with the employer by the employee under Rule 7(1) was
time barred. That has a short and also a long answer.
Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 7 effectively rebuffs that
contention. It provides that on the sole ground that
gratuity was claimed late and application was not
made within specified period to the employer the claim
shall not be treated invalid. However, the same
provision also contemplates that if there is any dispute
and if there is any controversy in regard to belated
application that shall be resolved by the Controlling
Authority. Evidently, for the first time in appeal, the
ground was urged to deprive the Controlling Authority
of its jurisdiction envisaged under Rule 7(5) to deal
and decide the controversy. That apart, it has been
rightly urged by Shri Lahoti, appearing for the
petitioner/employee, that neither section 7(1) nor Rule
7(1) is mandatory. That is made clear not only by sub-
rule (5) of Rule 7, but by the other parts of the parent
provisions contained in section 7. Sub-section (2)
makes it employer's duty to determine the amount of
gratuity and to give notice in writing to the employee of
the gratuity payable "whether an application referred
to in sub-section (1) has been made or not". Subsection
(3) obligates the employer to arrange payment of the
gratuity within the time prescribed and by sub-rule (4)
he is required to deposit with the Controlling Authority
such amount as he admits to be payable by him against
gratuity. It is noteworthy that neither clause (a) of sub-
section (4) nor the explanation appended to it
prescribes any period of limitation for making
application to the Controlling Authority for deciding
dispute of non-payment of gratuity."
24. Another Division Bench of this court in the case of L.S.
Patel (supra) was again seized of the similar issue and
again held that the claim of gratuity would not be defeated
by limitation as provided under the Rules and by taking note
of the provisions of Section 7(1) (2) (3) and (3A) of Act of
1972, the Division Bench held as under:-
"10. From aforesaid discussion, what comes out loud
and clear is that the principal amount of gratuity
determined and payable u/S 7(1) (2) and (3) of the
1972 Act is statutory in nature and there is no
limitation prescribed under the 1972 Act for claiming
the same. Similarly, the amount of interest payable
under sub-section (3A) of Section 7 of the 1972 Act is
also statutory in nature. When both i.e. the principal
amount of gratuity and the interest accrued thereupon
becoming payable due to failure of employer to
release gratuity within 30 days of retirement, then it
follows as a necessary consequence that the amount
of statutory interest worked out and becoming
payable u/S 7(3A) becomes part and parcel of the
principal amount of gratuity determined and payable
u/S 7(1)(2) and (3) of the 1972 Act."
25. This is settled in law that amounts of retiral dues,
including gratuity, are not bounties. It is deferred payment
to the employee for the long services rendered by him to the
Department. This payment is made to the employees in
December of their life with a view to provide them a
security. They can use this amount for their own settlement,
discharge of social obligations, etc. The retiral dues are
also recognized as property under the Article 300-A of the
Constitution. A person can be deprived of his property only
in accordance with a "law" made in this regard. In Bhaskar
Ramchandra Joshi v. State of M.P., reported in 2013 (4)
MPLJ 35, this Court has considered this aspect and opined
as under:--
"10. The Apex Court on different occasions had
considered the scope and ambit of property. In
Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India, (1971) 1 SCC
85 : AIR 1971 SC 530 opined that Prievy Purse
payable to exrulers is property. In Nagraj, K. v. State
of A.P., AIR 1985 SC 553, Apex Court opined that
right of person to his livelihood is property which is
subject to rules of retirement. In State of Kerala v.
Padmanabhan, (1985) 1 SCC 429 : AIR 1985 SC 356
the Apex Court opined that right of pension is
property under the Government service Rules, In
Madhav Rao Scindia v. State of M.P., AIR 1961 SC
298 and State of M.P. v. Ranojirao, AIR 1968 SC
1053, the Apex Court opined that property in the
context of Article 300-A includes 'money', salary
which has accrued pension, and cash grants annually
payable by the Government; pension due under
Government Service Rules; a right to bonus and other
sums due to employees under statute. This view was
also taken in (1971) 2 SCC 330 : AIR 1971 SC 1409,
Deokinandan v. State of Bihar. Bombay High Court
in the case reported in (2012) 3 Mah. L.J. 126,
Shapoor M. Mehra v. Allahabad Bank opined that
retiral benefits including pension and gratuity
constitute a valuable right in property. In
Deokinandan (supra) Apex Court opined as under :-
"(i) The right of the petitioner to receive pension
is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere
executive order the State had no powers to
withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is
also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it is not
saved by sub-article (5) of Article 19. Therefore, it
follows that the order denying the petitioner right
to receive pension affects the fundamental right of
the petitioner under Article 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of
the Constitution and as such the writ petition
under Article 32 is maintainable.
11. In the light of aforesaid legal position, it is
crystal clear that right to get the aforesaid
benefits is constitutional right. Gratuity or retiral
dues can be withheld or reduced only as per
provision made under M.P. Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1976. In the present case, there
is no material on record to show that respondents
have taken any action in invoking the said rules to
stop or withhold gratuity or other dues."
26. The Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand v.
Jitendra Kumar Shrivastava, reported in 2013 AIR SCW
4749 opined as under:--
"14. Article 300A of the Constitution of India reads
as under: - "300A. Persons not to be deprived of
property save by authority of law No person shall be
deprived of this property save by authority of law."
Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the
question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment
becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of
this pension without the authority of law, which is the
Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300A of
the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the
appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity
or even leave encashment without any statutory
provision and under the umbrage of administrative
instruction cannot be countenanced".
27. No other enabling provision is brought to the notice of
this Court which permits the employer to deprive the
employee from the right of gratuity, only on the ground of
delay. In absence of any enabling provision, in our opinion,
employees cannot be deprived of their right of gratuity
which is derived from Article 300-A of the Constitution.
Thus, ground of delay is of no help to the appellant. It is
therefore, held that the ground of delay taken by the
appellant is contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1972
and the M.P. Rules."
20. The second issue that was vehemently argued before this Court was that
various employees, who have not submitted any option, though they were
appointed prior to 28.12.1982 were therefore ousted from provisions of or
applicability of SSR 32 and in their case, the controlling authority could not
have passed any order granting gratuity as per SSR 32. To counter the said
submission, it was contended by counsel for the employees that there is not a
single case wherein option was not given by the employee, since SSR 32 was
much more beneficial. Therefore, there was no reason why each and every
employee would not have opted for SSR 32 and if the record has been
misplaced by the bank, then the employees cannot be put to any adversity for
this act of the bank.
21. Upon perusal of the reply filed before the controlling authority, it is seen
by this Court that the Bank did not take any objection before the Controlling
Authority in even a single case, that the employee concerned has not submitted
any option in terms of the amendment dated 28.12.1982. In absence of such
objection being taken before the controlling authority that the employee
concerned has not tendered any option, at this distance of time it cannot be
accepted by this Court that the concerned employee in the year 1982-83 had not
submitted any option. The counsel for the employees had also submitted that the
amendment in service regulations vide Notification dated at 28.12.1982 did not
contemplate any time limit for such option and therefore, the employees had
even submitted options after retirement and same were duly accepted by the
Bank. In any event, the Bank cannot take a new plea that was not there before
the Controlling Authority.
22. The amendment of SSR 32 with a new provision vide Notification dated
at 28.12.1982 was in the following terms:-
"In Rule 32:- Substitute the following for the existing Rule 32 of
the Rules namely:-
32(i) Employees of the Bank shall be entitled to payment of
Gratuity as per our 'provision' .under the payment of Gratuity
act 1972. Provided that the employees may opt for the "Rules
relating to payment of gratuity" framed by the Bank in this
behalf. Provided further that in case of employees who joined the
Bank services after 18-11-76 till coming into force of this
amendment, the option given as above will be effective from the
date of their coming the service of the Bank.. "
(ii) There shall be. an employees Gratuity Fund which 'shall be
administrated by 'the -Trustees as per provisions of Income Tax-
Act and a policy for the employees Gratuity Fund shall be taken
out from the Life Insurance Corporation for....as per terms and
conditions laid down in the policy.
(iii) Provided that notwithstanding anything attained in the
Gratuity Rules or in payment of Gratuity' Act 1972 the Bank
shall pay gratuity term-employee or his/her insurance-
Corporation agreement under disease rendering the employee
incapable of performing work/death benefit.
2. This amendment shall come into effect from the date of issue of
this order."
23. From a perusal of the aforesaid amendment notification, it is clear that no
time limit was set or was laid down for being covered under SSR 32 or under
Act of 1972 and therefore, counsel for the employees is correct in saying that
the options were submitted by the employees even after 28.12.1982 and any
date prior their retirement. Even otherwise, in none of the cases the objection
has been taken that option has not been submitted by the concerned employee
and therefore, at this distance of time this Court cannot hold or infer that option
was not submitted by the employee concerned prior to his superannuation, in
absence of any objection to that effect taken before the controlling authority.
24. So far as the question of certain employees appointed after 28.12.1982
coming up before the Controlling Authority and getting an order for payment of
gratuity is concerned, the SSR 32 had been amended on 28.12.1982 and no
employee appointed prior to that date would be entitled to exercise any option
and would obviously be covered by Act of 1972. Therefore, if any employee
appointed after 28.12.1982 has got an order of payment of gratuity as per SSR
32, i.e. not in accordance with law. The cases in which such issue will arise
would be considered in later part of this order.
25. So far as the Peons are concerned, it was duly admitted by the counsel for
Bank that though the provision for option was there in the amendment dated
28.12.1982, but options from the Peons were not taken by the bank. If that is the
position as admitted by counsel for the Bank, then the Peons cannot be put to
any loss for the own action of the Bank in deciding not to accept any option
from the Peons. Therefore, the Peons would be covered under SSR 32 even in
absence of any option because admittedly options from the peons were not
accepted by the bank.
26. Now the most important question which was argued by the counsel for
the parties is taken up which is that in SSR 32, Gratuity is calculated on the
basis of substantive pay and substantive pay would not include Dearness
Allowance (DA) or HRA. The counsel for the respondents had not seriously
objected to not counting HRA in substantive pay, but the main one of
contention before this Court was of Dearness Allowance and it was argued that
Dearness Allowance would not be part of substantive pay and on the other hand
the counsel for the respondent had argued that Dearness Allowance would be
part of substantive pay.
27. So far as Act of 1972 is concerned, Section 2(s) defines "wages" in the
following manner:-
"2(s) "wages" means all emoluments which are earned by
an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance with
the terms and conditions of his employment and which are
paid or are payable to him in cash and includes dearness
allowance but does not include any bonus, commission,
house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other
allowance."
28. On the other hand, SSR 32 does not talk about "wages", but talks about
"substantive pay" and the expression "substantive pay" is not defined.
29. Counsel for the petitioner had argued that substantive pay would only
mean the basic pay, because basic pay is what is substantive and other
components are allowances or perks, and substantive pay is the actual or basic
pay.
30. Taking inference from other statutes, for example- M.P.Civil Services
Pension Rules, it speaks about calculation of gratuity and pension on the basis
of "average emoluments". The word emoluments have been defined in Rule 30
of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 in the following manner:-
"30. Emoluments.- The expression "emoluments" means pay
as defined in Rule 9 (21) of the Fundamental Rules (including
dearness pay, if any, as determined by the order of the
Government issued from time to time) which a Government
servant was receiving immediately before his retirement or on
the date of his death, as the case may be.
[Explanation. (1) For those Government Servants, who are
drawing pay in the revised pay scale, under the Madhya
Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 or Madhya Pradesh
Revision of Pay Rules, 1998, or pay scales of U.G.C. or All
India Council of Technical Education or All India Services the
expression 'emoluments' means basic pay as defined in Rule
9 (21) (a) (i) of the Fundamental Rules, which a Government
Servant was receiving immediately before his retirement and
will also include dearness pay and personal pay, if any, as
determined by the order of State Government, from time to
time.
(2) Bilingual Allowance of Stenographers shall be treated as
'emoluments' for calculation of retirement benefits.
(3) Special pay, if any, received in lieu of higher pay scale on
promotion shall also be treated as 'emoluments' for
calculation of retirement benefits.]
(4) Non Practising Allowance granted to medical
officers/medical teachers in lieu of private practice shall be
treated as emoluments for calculation of retirement benefits
subject to the following conditions:-
(a) Non-practising allowance drawn during the last
120 months immediately before the date of
retirement/death, shall be taken into account for
determining average amoluments.
(b) In cases where during the last 120 months,
immediately before the date of retirement/death, if non
practising al-lowance is drawn at different scales and
the total of such spells is less than 120 months, then
120th part of non-prac-tising allowance shall be taken
into account for calculating retirement benefits.]
Note 1. - If a Government servant immediately before his
retirement or death while in service had been absent from duty
on leave for which leave salary is payable or having been
suspended had been reinstated without forfeiture of service,
the emoluments which he would have drawn had he not been
absent from duty or suspended shall be the emoluments for the
purposes of this rule.
Note 2. - If a Government servant immediately before his
retirement or death while in service had been absent from duty
on extraordinary leave or had been under suspension, the
period whereof does not count as service, the emoluments
which he drew immediately before proceeding on such leave
or being placed under suspension shall be the emoluments for
the purposes of this rule.
Note 3. - If a Government servant immediately before his
retirement or death while in service, was on earned leave, and
earned an increment which was not withheld, such increment,
though not actually drawn, shall form part of his emoluments :
Provided that the increment was earned during the currency of
the earned leave not exceeding one hundred and twenty days,
or during the first one hundred and twenty days of earned
leave where such leave was for more than one hundred and
twenty days.]
Note 4. - Pay drawn by a Government servant while on foreign
service shall not be treated as emoluments, but the pay which
he should have drawn under the Government had he not been
on foreign service shall alone be treated as emoluments.
Note 5. - Where a pensioner who is re-employed in
Government service elects in terms of clause (a) of sub-rule
(1) of Rule 17 or clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 to retain
his pension for earlier service and whose pay on re-
employment has been reduced by an amount not exceeding his
pension, the element of pension by which his pay is reduced
shall be treated as emoluments.
Note 6. - Where a Government servant has been transferred to
an autonomous body consequent on the conversion of a
department of the Government into such a body and the
Government servant so transferred opts to retain the
pensionary benefits under the rules of the Government, the
emoluments drawn under the autonomous body shall be
treated as emoluments for the purpose of this rule.]"
(Emphasis supplied)
31. The aforesaid Rule-30 clarifies that emolument means pay as per Rule
9(21) of Fundamental Rules including Dearness Pay. If "pay" as defined in Rule
9 (21) of the Fundamental Rules had already included Dearness Allowance,
then there was no reason to separately insert as an expression "including
dearness pay". Therefore, the provisions of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules
do indicate that as per Rule 9 (21) of Fundamental Rules Dearness Allowance is
not part of pay.
32. Now coming to Fundamental Rules as per Rule 9 (21) of Fundamental
Rules 'pay' has been defined as under:-
"9(21) (a) "Pay" means the amount drawn monthly by
Government servant as-
(i) the pay, other than special pay or pay granted in
view of his personal qualifications, which has been
sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an
officiating capacity or to which he is entitled by reason
of his position in a cadre, and
(ii) overseas pay, technical pay, special pay and
personal pay, and
(iii) any other emoluments which may be specially
classed as pay by the Governor-General in Council.
(b) In the case of military officer, in receipt of the rates of
pay introduced on July 1 st, 1924, pay includes the amount
which he receives monthly under the following
designations:-
(i) Pay of appointment, lodging allowance and
marriage allowance, and
(ii) Pay of rank, command pay, additional pay, Indian
Army allowance, lodging allowance and marriage
allowance.
(c) In the case of a military officer, in receipt of the rates of
pay in force before 1 st July 1924, pay include the amount
which be receives monthly under the following
designations:-
(i) Military pay and allowances and staff salary,
(ii) Indian Army pay and staff salary, and
(iii) Consolidated pay."
The aforesaid definition does not speak about Dearness Allowance at all
and in Clause 21(a)(iii), itspeaks about any other emoluments, which may be
specially classified as "pay" shall be part of "pay". However, Dearness
Allowance would not be covered under pay, but would be covered under FR-44,
which relates to additions to pay, which is in Chapter-V that relates to additions
to pay.
33. Most importantly, Clause 9 (28) of the Fundamental Rules defines
substantive pay, in the following terms :-
(28) "Substantive pay" means the pay inclusive of special pay sanctioned in
lieu of higher time-scale of pay, other than special pay, personal pay or
emoluments classed as pay under Rule 9 (21) (a) (iii), to which a
Government servant is entitled on account of a post to which he has been
appointed substantively or by reason of his substantive position in a cadre.
LGR 2. -- In the case of a person with a lien on a permanent post under a
State or Central Government, "substantive pay" means the "substantive
pay" as defined in the relevant rules of the State Government concerned.
From the aforesaid definition, there remains no doubt that substantive pay
does not include special pay, personal pay or even emoluments classed as pay.
It only includes the "pay" and "special Pay" in lieu of higher time-scale of pay.
The petitioner Bank, being an instrumentality of the State, being a Bank
substantially owned and controlled by the State Government, though in
Cooperative sector, its rules have to be read in reference of the meanings
attached to the terms in the Fundamental Rules applicable to State Government
employees. This will be because the rules of the bank itself nowhere define
"substantive pay".
34. FR-44 provides for compensatory allowances in the following manner:-
"F.R. 44. Authority competent to grant compensatory
allowance.-Subject to any restrictions which the Secretary of
State in Council may by order impose upon the powers of the
Governor-General in Council or the Governor in Council, as
the case may be, and to the general rule that the amount of a
compensatory allowance should be so regulated that the
allowance is not on the whole a source of profit to the
recipient, a local Government may grant such allowances to
any Government servant under its control and may make
rules prescribing their amounts and the conditions under
which they may be drawn.
S.S.O. 1. Payment of Compensatory Allowance equal to
British Income Tax.-(1) The Secretary of State in Council has
decided that where an officer who has made arrangements to
spend less then six months on leave in the United Kingdom
during the fiscal year becomes liable to British Income-Tax
though being detained on duty beyond that period, he may be
granted a compensatory allowance equal to the Income-Tax
on leave pay, up to maximum of six months, which he would
have escaped but for such detention on duty.
(2) The decision, however, has not been embodied in the
India Office rules regulating travelling, etc., allowances.
S.S.O. 2. Equipment allowance of a Member of the
Council of India.-The Secretary of State for India in Council
has decided that the equipment allowance of a gentleman
who is habitually resident in India at the time of receiving
notice of his intended appointment as Member of the Council
of India shall for the further be fixed 250. The allowances of
Pounds 100 each way granted for the voyage to England on
appointment and the return voyage to India on termination of
officer, remains unaltered.
S.S.O. 3. The following decisions have been reached by
the Secretary of State and his Advisers:-
(1) Compensatory allowances are to be regarded as
included in remuneration for the purposes of the proviso to
section 247 (1) and section 250 (3) of the Government of
India Act, 1935.
(2) These allowances can be withdrawn or reduced on
satisfactory proof that the circumstances on which the grant
was based have in fact altered to an extent justifying
withdrawal or reduction.
(3) Rules regulating these allowances should continue
(unless and until the Secretary of State decides to exercise his
rule making powers in respect of such allowances under
section 247 (1) (b) of the Act) to be made by the Government
in India.
(4) As regards Secretary of State's officers, the
authorities competent both to decide the question of fact in
(2) and to authorise withdrawal or reduction of allowances
(other than travelling allowances) are-
(a) In the case of officers to whom sub-section (3)
of Section 258 of the Government of India Act, 1935,
applies, the Secretary of State.
(b) In the case of other officers, the Governor
exercising his individual judgement as regards officers
serving in connection with the officers of a province:
A.G.I. 1. Where the condition mentioned in clause (2) of
S.S.O. 3 above, is fulfilled it is permissible-
(i) for the competent authority as defined in
clause (4) ibid to deliberalize the rules or orders
having the force of rules, regulating compensatory
allowances other than travelling allowances; and
(ii) for the competent authority as defined in the
Travelling Allowances (Secretary of State's Officers)
Rules, 1939, to deliberalize the rules or orders having
the force of rules, regulating travelling allowances in
their application to all Secretary of State's Officers and
such a modification under such condition does not
amount to giving less favourable terms as respects
remuneration within the meaning of the proviso to
Section 247 (1) and sub-section (3) of Section 250 of
the Govern-ment of India Act, 1935.
The decision is based on the consideration that the amount of
a compensatory allowance has always been subject to the
condition that the allowance should not be a source of profit
to the recipient (vide Fundamental Rule 4) and if the amount
of the allowance is reduced to make it conform to this
condition, recipient cannot be said to be adversely affected or
to suffer any deliberalization in the terms of their
remuneration.
G.I.O. It is within the competence of the local Government to
sanction, under Fundamental Rule 44, compensatory
allowance the cost of which is debited to provincial revenues
for military officers on the personal staff of Governors.
A.G.I. Hill allowance a compensatory Allowance.-Hill
allowances fall under "Compensatory Allowances" local
Government have powers to sanction them under
Fundamental Rule 44.
S.R. 1. A compensatory allowance attached to a post will be
drawn in full by a Government servant performing the duties
of that post, and if such a Government servant is transferred
to a post to which a compensatory allowance of a like nature
is attached, he may draw the allowance during joining time,
provided that if the rates of allowances differ, he may draw
the lower rate only.
S.R. 2. Compensatory allowances, other than house-rent
allowances, may not be drawn by Government servants on
leave except in special cases and with the sanction of
Government. (Compensatory allowance granted while on
duty to Public Health and Medical personnel including those
serving in Labour Department shall be admissible to them
during leave subject to the following conditions:-
(i) the leave is not one preparatory to retirement;
(ii) the allowance shall be admissible only during the
first four months of each period of "leave on average
pay" or during the period of 'earned leave' according
as the Government servant concerned, is subject to the
leave rules in Fundamental Rules or the Revised Leave
Rules, 1934;
(iii) the head of office certifies in writing that the loss
of private practice continues during leave; and
(iv) the allowance during leave shall be based on leave
salary and not pay.]
S.R.2-A. A House-rent allowance may be drawn by a
Government servant during the first four months of each
period of leave on average pay or full pay or for six months
in the case of leave admissible under the special concession
referred to in Note 1 to Fundamental Rule 89, provided that
(a) the leave is not preliminary to retirement; (b) the leave is
taken from a post on which such an allowance is attached;
and (c) the Government servant certifies that his previous
rate of expenditure for a house continues during leave and
that he places his house, free of rent, at the disposal of the
Government servant, if any, who officiates in his post. The
officiating Government servant cannot in such case draw the
house rent allowance attached to the post. If, however, the
officiating Government servant, for a reason which a
competent authority considers to be sufficient, refuses the
accommodation placed at his disposal he, and not the absent
Government servant will draw the allowance.
S.R. 2-B. [Deleted]
S.R. 2-C. The drawal of a house-rent allowance is contingent
on the Government servant's incurring the full amount of
expenditure to meet which the allowance is granted. A claim
on account of house-rent allowance should, therefore, be
supported by a certificate in the following form to be
furnished by the officer himself (if he is a gazetted officer) or
by the drawing officer in the case of non-gazetted
establishments, with each bill containing a charge for house-
rent allowance:-
"Certified that Government quarters have not been provided
and that the actual expenditure incurred for the hire of the
house is not less than the allowance claimed."
[In case of a Government servant on study Leave, the
Drawing Officer should furnish a certificate:-
"Certified that the Government servant on Study Leave for
whom House Rent Allowance is drawn in the leave salary bill
is likely to be reposted to his former post and that his family
continues to reside at the station where the Government
servant was residing prior to his proceeding on study
leave."]
A.G.I. Compensatory allowance to be drawn only during
leave on average pay for four months. The maximum period
during which a Government servant can be allowed to draw
compensatory allowances while on leave is four months (or
six months in the case of leave admissible under the special
concession referred to in note 1 to Fundamental Rule 89).
The length of the total period of leave is irrelevant, but
compensatory allowance cannot be drawn during any period
of leave which is not leave on average pay."
35. Compensatory allowances can be allowances named as compensatory
allowances and even allowances that are though not named as compensatory
allowance, but given to compensate something. City compensatory allowance is
one compensatory allowance. Dearness Allowance is another compensatory
allowance, which is paid to compensate the loss of value of pay or basic pay due
to inflation. Grant of Dearness Allowance ensures that the employee remains at
the same purchasing power, which the basic pay on the date of enforcement of
the pay scale containing the basic pay was having and if the said basic pay is
being paid say 5 to 10 years after announcement of the pay scales, then after
factoring for inflation and loss of purchasing power due to inflation, Dearness
Allowance is granted. It is based on inflation from time to time so as to keep the
purchasing power at par of basic pay, which purchasing power was available at
the time of announcement of the pay scale. Therefore, Dearness Allowance is a
allowance compensating for inflation and it is also compensatory allowance and
it will be covered as additions to pay under Chapter-V of Fundamental Rules
and cannot be deemed to be part of "pay" as per Clause 9 (21) of Fundamental
Rules. It will, thus, not be "substantive pay" in view of plain definition of
"substantive pay" as contained in the Fundamental Rules.
36. It is for this reason, that the Central Government has not been
consistently recognizing Dearness Allowance as part of "Pay"". In each
Dearness Allowance revision order, this is clarified. In the latest order, this has
again been clarified in Clause - 3, that Dearness Allowance is not part of "Pay"
under FR 9 (21). The said latest order dated 06.10.2025 is as under :-
37. Even the State Government, while issuing Dearness Allowance revision
orders, has been clarifying in each Dearness Allowance revision order, that it is
not part of "pay".In the latest Dearness Allowance revision order of the State
Government, the same has been clarified in paragraph-7. The entire order is as
under :-
38. Furthermore, the counsel for the petitioner had relied on the gratuity rules
applicable to National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
(NABARD) and from a perusal of Rule 3(5), pay has five components including
substantive pay, officiating pay, special pay, personal pay, special personal pay
and any other emoluments classified as pay by the Board, whereas as per Clause
5-A Dearness Allowance means a allowance as per Rule 64 of NABARD Staff
Rules, 1982, which is not classified as part of pay, Rule (5) and (5A) are as
under:-
"(5). "Pay" means the 'Pay' admissible to an
employee in the grade held as on the date of retirement and
includes:-
(i) the substantive pay,
(ii) officiating pay,
(iii) special pay,
(iv) personal pay,
(v) special, personal pay and
(vi) any other emoluments classified as 'Pay' by the
Board.
(5A) Dearness Allowance means allowance, as
provided for in the para III (A) of Appendix II read with
Rule 64 of National Bank of Agriculture and Rural
Development (Staff) Rules, 1982."
39. The aforesaid definition, though it is not applicable to petitioner Bank,
also indicates that Dearness Allowance is not part of pay, though it is paid along
with pay to compensate loss of purchasing power of money due to inflation.
40. This Court is aware of the fact that for all India Services,Dearness
Allowance is not part of the compensatory allowance, because separate rules
have been framed for Dearness Allowance and separate rules have been framed
for other compensatory allowance and for this reason the all India service
compensatory allowance Rules 1954,Clause 2(a) a clarifies that compensatory
allowance for the purpose of these rules would not include Dearness Allowance
or any other allowance, which is regulated by separate rules.Since for all India
services separate Dearness Allowance Rules of 1972 have been framed,
therefore, in relation to those services Dearness Allowance is not part of
compensatory allowances by a legal fiction created by the Rules of
1954.However, for other services, Dearness Allowance is not a "substantive
pay", but a compensatory addition to pay.
41. This Court is further bolstered in its opinion by the past conduct of the
parties inasmuch as in the past the Bank had been paying gratuity on the basis
of basic pay by deducting Dearness Allowance for the purpose of gratuity, and
gratuities to all employees under SSR 32 had been paid on that basis.One of the
employees, namely ShriK.P.Shimpy had approached the Controlling Authority
and the Controlling Authority had calculated Gratuity only on the basis of basic
pay and that part of the order was not put to challenge by the employee, but was
put to challenge by the bank in W.P. No.20174 of 2016 and the said order was
confirmed.
42. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation holding that for the purpose of
SSR 32, Gratuity would be calculated only on the basis of basic pay, which
alone would be "substantive pay" and Dearness Allowance would not be part of
substantive pay.
43. Consequently, it is held that all the petitioners would be entitled to get
benefit of gratuity under SSR 32 only on the basis of basic pay at the time of
retirement, which will not include HRA and DA. In absence of objection taken
before the Controlling Authority, it shall be deemed that they have submitted
option to be covered under SSR 32.
44. So far as the question of some employees being appointed after
28.11.1982 is concerned, it is contended that the employees were employed in
some other organization like District Central Cooperative Bank, and later on,
they were absorbed in the petitioner Bank. If the said employees had been
absorbed in petitioner bank, therefore, at this distance of time their status cannot
be disputed by the petitioner Bank and they would be entitled to count their
services as if they were appointed prior to 28.11.1982, if their date of
appointment in previous establishment was prior to 28.11.1982. It is relevant to
note here that all DCCBs being central Societies are members of the petitioner-
Bank, which is a Apex Society/Bank. If the employees have been taken over
from member societies, then they will count their services from initial date of
appointment in the member society (DCCB) for the purpose of Gratuity.
45. However, in W.P. No. 8093 of 2025, W.P. 8100 of 2025, W.P. 8101 of
2025 and W.P. 9005 of 2025, as per pleadings, the employees seem to have
been appointed after 28.11.1982 and these matters are remanded back to the
controlling authority to re-determine the question of date of initial appointment
of these employees.
46. Consequently, the petitions are disposed of in the following terms:-
(i) The objection as to delay is over-ruled in all cases.
(ii) All the matters are remanded back to the Controlling
Authority to re-determine the amount of Gratuity under SSR-
32 by treating the "basic pay"as the substantive pay and
deducting HRA and DA for the purpose of calculation of
substantive pay.
(iii) In case the employee concerned has already been paid a
higher amount previously, then the said amount shall not be
recoverable, and the matter shall be put to rest.
(iv) The question of employee having submitted option shall
not be raised before the Controlling Authority after remand
and it would be treated that all the respondents have duly
submitted options to be covered under SSR 32.
(v) Only in W.P. Nos.8093 of 2025, 8100 of 2025, 8101 of
2025 and 9005 of 2025, since the employees therein are not
stated to be absorbed from a member-Bank but appointed for
the first time after 28.11.1982, the Controlling Authority shall
also deal with the question of date of initial appointment of the
respondent-employee therein. If they are found to be appointed
after 28.11.1982, then they would not be covered under SSR-32.
(vi) The question of date of initial appointment of
employees taken over from DCCBs or other Organizations
shall not be opened in any other case.
(vi) The Controlling Authority shall take a fresh decision
within four months.
47. No order as to cost.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm/rj
