Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank vs Om Dutt Kataria
2022 Latest Caselaw 9193 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9193 Raj
Judgement Date : 14 July, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank vs Om Dutt Kataria on 14 July, 2022

Bench: Rekha Borana

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11930/2019

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Through Its Chairman, Head Office, Tulsi Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342008.

----Petitioner Versus Om Dutt Kataria S/o Shri Ganesh Mal Kataria, 21/e/129- Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur-342008.

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10368/2019 Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Through Its Chairman, Head Office Tusli Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And The Deputy Chief Labor Commissioner (Central), Ajmer.

2. Controlling Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Assistant Labor Commissioner (Central), Ajmer (Raj.)

3. Shri Chander Singh Bendha S/o Shri Dungda Ram, Through The General Secretary, Gramin Bank, Pensioners Samity, Pali

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10469/2020 Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Through Its Chairman, Head Office, Tulsi Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan - 3420032.

----Petitioner Versus Jai Shankar Mishra, Through General Secretary, Gramin Bank Pensioners Samity, 248, Jay Nagar, Ramdev Road, Pali (Raj.).

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Sharma for Mr. Bhavit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jetha Ram Lohia

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

14/07/2022

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issues

raised in the present writ petitions are squarely covered by

(2 of 3) [CW-11930/2019]

Division Bench judgment in Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Vs.

The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act & Ors.:

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.561/2020, decided on 05.01.2022,

wherein, the Division Bench while allowing the special appeal has

set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and that

of the Controlling Authority & the Appellate Authority and it was

directed that the amount deposited by the Bank before the Court

or Authorities, shall be returned back to the Bank.

Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that

the issue, as raised, is covered by the order passed by the Division

Bench. However, submissions have been made that the judgment

on the issue delivered by Madhya Pradesh High Court has not

been taken into consideration and that against the Division Bench

judgment, similarly placed respondents have approached the

Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In the case of Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (supra),

the Division Bench inter-alia directed as under:-

"34. Since we have held the central issue in favour of the Bank, it is not necessary to go into the question of delay at the hands of the officers in approaching the competent authority, which was ignored without filing the applications for condonation. We may, however, briefly observe that the Appellate Authority and the learned Single Judge were correct in reversing the decision of the Competent Authority in relation to its interpretation on additional benefit payable to a retiring officer having more than 30 years of service. Such benefit as per the correct interpretation of the regulation would be additional amount calculated at the rate of one half month's pay for every completed year of service beyond 30 years. This is quite besides the question whether the officers without filing independent writ petitions challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, could have agitated this issue before the learned Single Judge by raising it in a reply. 35. In the result, all the appeals are

(3 of 3) [CW-11930/2019]

allowed. Resultantly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the orders passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are set aside. If the bank has deposited any amount before this court or the Authorities under the Act of1972 pursuant to the impugned orders and judgment, the same shall be returned to the bank."

The issue as raised in the present petition is squarely

covered by the Division Bench judgment. Insofar as, the plea

raised about non-consideration of judgment of Madhya Pradesh

High Court and the fact that against the said Division Bench

judgment, the respondents therein, have approached the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, cannot be a reason enough not to follow the

Division Bench judgment of this Court.

Consequently, following the judgment in the case of

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (supra), the writ petitions filed

by the petitioner-Bank are allowed. The orders passed by the

controlling authority as well as the Appellate Authority are set-