This order disposes of a writ petition regarding enhanced gratuity benefits under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, by relying on a judgment from a co-ordinate bench, directing the bank to pay the difference and interest. The case was not heard de novo.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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
----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.
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
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, after the Amendment Act, 2010 to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is entitled to enhanced gratuity.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Geeta Ram Gupta & Ors. Vs. Tonk District Cooperative Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited & Anr.Explained¶15
Geeta Ram Gupta & Ors. Vs. Tonk District Cooperative Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5120/2018)
Satyanarain Sharma
The State Of Rajasthan
The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies
Tonk District Cooperative Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited
Inderjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
