Ghulam Mohammed, J.

Both these appeals can be conveniently dealt with and decided as they arise out of common set of facts.

2. Writ Appeal No.847 of 2004 is preferred by the State Bank of Hyderabad (henceforth referred to as ‘Bank’), challenging the correctness of the Judgment passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by it. W.A.No.866 of 2004 was preferred by the Bank against the Judgment rendered in W.P.No.12354 of 1997 preferred by the employee.

3. The third respondent herein is the employee. The third respondent/employee joined the service of the Bank on 30.11.1946 and ultimately retired from its service as a Special Assistant on 03.06.1982. Thus, he has rendered a total service of 35 Years, 6 Months and 3 Days to the employer. He was paid a sum of Rs.23,327.50 ps as gratuity in accordance with the State Bank of Hyderabad Gratuity Regulations 1960 (henceforth referred to as ‘Regulations’). Subsequently, he was also further paid a sum of Rs.866.68 ps. Regulation 5 dealt with the amount of gratuity payable to the employees, according to which, a sum equal to one month’s pay for each completed year of service in the bank subject to a maximum of 15 months pay or Rs.24,000/-whichever is less is payable. Further, an additional sum equal to half month’s pay in respect of each completed year of service in the bank in excess of 30 years is also payable. In accordance with these regulations, the third respondent/employee was paid in all a sum of Rs.24,194.18 ps. After lapse of 11 years, the employee has approached the Controlling Authority under ‘The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972’, complaining that there was deficit payment of gratuity to him in a sum of Rs.4,981/-by the employer. On 06.03.1996, the 2nd respondent allowed the said claim by ordering for payment of Rs.4,981/-representing the deficit amount of gratuity and also a sum of Rs.8,219/-towards interest for the delayed payment. Then the employer carried the matter in appeal to the appellate authority. That appeal was allowed in part by directing the employer to pay only a sum of Rs.1,444.30 ps. Challenging the said order, the writ petition has been preferred. The third respondent/employee also challenged the validity of the order passed by the appellate authority dated 30.03.1997 by instituting another W.P.No12354 of 1997.

4. It was not in dispute that the employee has last drawn his wages at Rs.1,363/-per month. This is how the employer calculated the gratuity payable to the employee. It multiplied the last month wages drawn by the employer by 15, for the first 30 years. (It comes to Rs.20,445). For the service rendered by the employee beyond 30 years, it divided the monthly wages by 2 and then multiplied it by 6. (It comes to Rs.4,089/-). The whole question that was agitated before the learned single Judge was whether the calculation carried out by the Bank, is in accord with the amendment introduced by amending Act 22 of 1987 by adding an explanation to Subsection 2 of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which amendment has been brought into force with effect from 01.02.1991? whereas, in the instant case the employee has retired from service much prior thereto on 03.06.1982. Therefore, it was contended that, the order passed by the competent authority as affirmed by the appellate authority under the gratuity act is erroneous. The learned single Judge has repelled this contention and hence this appeal.

5. It is not in dispute that, as per Regulation 5 of State Bank of Hyderabad (Payment of Gratuity to Employees) Regulations 1960, an employee shall be paid gratuity equal to one month’s pay for each completed year of service for the first 30 years subject to maximum of 15 months pay or Rs.24,000/-whichever is less and in addition, a sum equal to half month’s pay in respect of each completed year of service in the bank in excess of 30 years. Hence, for the first 30 years of service, bank has to calculate 15 months wages at