Satyanarain Sharma Son Of Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3179 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 427/2019

Satyanarain Sharma Son Of Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma, Aged
About 61 Years, Resident Of Kanchan Villa, Annarpurna Doongri,
Ward No. 34, Bambhore Road, Tonk, Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Co-
         Operative Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Nehru Sahkar
         Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur.
3.       Tonk District Cooperative Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited,
         Kisan Sahakar Bhawan, Civil Lines Tonk Through Its
         Administrator.
4.       Tonk District Cooperative Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited,
         Kisan Sahakar Bhawan Civil Lines Tonk Through Its
         Secretary.
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

20/04/2022

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in

this writ petition has already been considered and decided by the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Geeta Ram Gupta

& Ors. Vs. Tonk District Cooperative Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited &

Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5120/2018) decided on

06.12.2021, where in the following order was passed:-

"The controversy involved in the writ petition is within very narrow compass.

(2 of 3) [CW-427/2019]

All the petitioners, working on various posts with the Respondent-Tonk District Cooperative Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited (for brevity "the Bank") are post retiree 24.05.2010, i.e., when, vide amendment in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for brevity "the Act of 1972"), vide Amendment Act, 2010, the ceiling of ₹3,50,000/- under Section 4 of the Act of 1972 was enhanced to ₹10,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been paid gratuity to the tune of ₹3,50,000/- only whereas, having retired after 24.05.2010, they were entitled for the enhanced amount of gratuity in terms of the amendment. He submits that the other similarly situated employees of the Bank have already been extended benefit of enhanced amount of gratuity and have been paid difference in the gratuity amount. He, therefore, prays for that the writ petition be allowed and the respondents may be directed to pay them enhanced amount of gratuity with interest @ 6% per annum. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the aforesaid factual as well as legal position. However, he submits that the Bank may be granted a reasonable time to make the payment.

In view thereof, nothing survives for consideration of this Court. The writ petition is allowed in the following terms:-

1. The respondent-Bank shall pay to the petitioners, the amount of enhanced gratuity, i.e., over and above the sum of ₹3,50,000/- already paid with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition till the actual payment is made.

2. The respondent-Bank is granted six months' time to comply with the aforesaid direction."

Counsel for the respondents have not disputed the

submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

(3 of 3) [CW-427/2019]

In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition in

view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in the matter of Geeta Ram Gupta (supra).

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

Upendra Pratap Singh /46

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)