Telangana High Court
V N Janarhdhan Rao vs The Commissioner For Cooperation And ... on 31 January, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Writ Appeal No.1147 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2022 in
W.P.No.12969 of 2003 passed by the learned Single
Judge, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
2. Heard Sri Goda Shiva, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader
for Cooperation, appearing for respondent No.1;
Sri Rohit Pogula, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.2 & 3; Sri Guru Prasad, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 & 5 .
3. Learned counsel for the appellant had contended
that the appellant was initially appointed as
Supervisor with the respondent-Bank in the year 1965
and he has tendered his resignation to the post of
Supervisor in the year 1972. Later, he was reappointed
as Supervisor with the respondent-Bank on
::2:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_1147_2023
28.10.1978. Thereafter, the respondents have issued a
notice on 27.05.1981, as to why the services of the
appellant could not be terminated. Aggrieved by the
issuance of the notice by the respondent-Bank, the
appellant has approached this Court by filing
W.P.No.4405 of 1981 and this Court was pleased to
grant interim directions on 24.06.1981 to continue the
appellant in service. Learned counsel further
contended that finally W.P.No.4405 of 2001 was
allowed by this Court vide order, dated 27.01.1981
and by virtue of the order passed in the said writ
petition, the appellant was allowed to continue in
service. Finally, the appellant has retired from service
on attaining the age of super annuation on
31.12.2002. The grievance of the appellant was that
after retiring from service, the respondent-Bank have
issued a proceedings on 16.05.2003, wherein, the
respondent-Bank was trying to recover an amount of
Rs.1,24,305.85 ps., and the increments were also not
extended to him from 1994 to 1998 and the terminal
benefits were also not settled. In those set of
::3:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_1147_2023
circumstances, the appellant had approached this
Court by filing the subject W.P.No.12969 of 2003
challenging the impugned order, dated 16.05.2003,
wherein, the respondent-Bank had recovered an
amount of Rs.1,24,305.85 ps., from the retiral benefits
of the appellant and the appellant was challenging the
action of the respondents in not paying interest for
delayed disbursement of gratuity in terms of Section 7
(3) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'the
Act') and also sought for direction of granting
increments to the appellant from the period where the
appellant was denied increments. The learned Single
Judge was pleased to partly allow the writ petition and
set aside the recovery proceedings by following the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in
Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.G and
others 1.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further
contended that in respect of prayer Nos.2 and 3 are
concerned, the learned Single Judge has rejected the
AIR 1999 SC 1849
::4:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_1147_2023
claim of the appellant, without appreciating any of the
contentions raised by the appellant. Learned counsel
for the appellant further contended that as per Section
7 (3A) of the Act, if there is any delay in disbursing the
gratuity, the employee is entitled to be paid interest as
determined by the Central Government. The appellant
has retired from service on 31.12.2002, whereas the
gratuity was disbursed only after disposal of the writ
petition preferred by the appellant i.e., on 22.05.2023,
which would mean that there was a delay of nearly two
(2) decades in disbursing the gratuity. Therefore,
appropriate orders be passed in the writ appeal by
directing the respondent- Bank to grant interest for the
delayed disbursal of gratuity to the appellant in terms
of Section 7 (3A) of the Act and also to release
increments from the year 1994 to 1998, in addition to
the relief granted by the learned Single Judge.
Admittedly, no reasons were assigned as to why the
increments of the appellant were denied from that
relevant point of time.
::5:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_1147_2023
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents had contended that the 'bye-laws of a
society cannot be enforced' and the issue was squarely
covered by the judgment of Full Bench of Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Sri Konaseema Co-operative
Central Bank Ltd., Amalapuram v. N. Seetharama
Raju 2, wherein it has held that the contractual
obligations for release of increments cannot be
enforced under Article 226. Therefore, the learned
Single Judge was justified in rejecting the claim of the
appellant in respect of grant of interest for delayed
disbursal of gratuity and also for releasing the
increments in favour of the appellant. Learned counsel
further contended that the alleged increments were
stopped by the respondent-Bank in the year 1994.
While, the appellant was in service, he has not made
any claim for release of increments, it is only after
retirement, the appellant has approached this Court
seeking release of increments, which is not
AIR 1990 A.P 171
::6:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_1147_2023
permissible. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ
appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court, having considered the rival
submissions made by both the parties, is of the view
that the learned Single Judge ought to have granted
interest to the appellant for the delayed disbursal of
the gratuity in terms of Section 7 (3A) of the Act. As far
as increments are concerned, normally the increments
are granted to the employees, if there are any sufficient
reasons to stop the increments, the increments can be
stopped by passing appropriate orders. In the instant
case, the respondents have not come up with any valid
reasons as to why the increments of the appellant were
stopped from the year 1994-1998. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be
met, if the present writ appeal is disposed of directing
the respondent-Bank to pay interest for the delayed
disbursal of gratuity in terms of Section 7 (3A) of the
Act and also to release the increments from the year
1994 to 1998, however, as far as increments are
::7:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_1147_2023
concerned, the appellant is not entitled for interest of
delayed disbursal of increments, as admittedly, he has
not made any claim earlier when the increments were
denied in 1994.
7. With the above said observations, the Writ Appeal
is disposed of. No costs.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending
if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
______________________________________
__
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 31.01.2024
prat
::8:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_1147_2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Date: 31.01.2024
prat
