IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.SUJATHA, J.
Sri Puvvada Venkata Mohana Murali Krishna Murthy – Appellant
Versus
Sri J. Murali and 2 others – Respondent
Contempt Case No.2919 of 2018 and Writ Petition No.28820 of 2018
Decided on : 31-10-2022
WRIT PETITION No.28820 of 2018 - SERVICE BENEFITS - TERMINAL BENEFITS - GRATUITY - LEAVE ENCASHMENT - SPECIAL CATEGORY ASSISTANTS - MEMORANDUM OF INTENT DATED 11.01.2013 - SERVICE REGULATIONS OF DCCB - INTERPRETATION - ENTITLEMENT - COURT'S DIRECTION TO PAY TERMINAL BENEFITS AS PER MEMORANDUM OF INTENT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Special Category Assistant in a DCCB, sought payment of gratuity and leave encashment as per the terms of a Memorandum of Intent (MOI) dated 11.01.2013 and the service regulations of the DCCB. The petitioner argued that he was entitled to these benefits from the date of his initial appointment in 1978, while the DCCB contended that he was only entitled to benefits from the date he joined the DCCB in 2009.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to gratuity and leave encashment from the date of his initial appointment in 1978, as per the terms of the MOI dated 11.01.2013. The court found that the petitioner had completed more than 20 years of service as on the date of his retirement and was therefore entitled to the maximum gratuity payable, which was 20 months. The court also found that the petitioner was entitled to 240 days of leave encashment.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to gratuity and leave encashment from the date of his initial appointment in 1978 or from the date he joined the DCCB in 2009? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the maximum gratuity payable, which was 20 months?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the terms of the MOI dated 11.01.2013, which stated that Special Category Assistants who had completed 5 years of service in the DCCB were eligible for terminal benefits as per the service regulations of the DCCB. The court also relied on the service regulations of the DCCB, which provided that gratuity was payable at the rate of one month's salary for each year of service, subject to a maximum of 20 months.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the DCCB to pay the petitioner gratuity for 20 months and 240 days of leave encashment, by duly deducting the amount already paid towards gratuity and leave encashment, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
ORDER:
WRIT PETITION No.28820 of 2018
The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
“to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent Bank in not paying the terminal benefits i.e., Gratuity for 20 months and Encashment of Earned Leave for 240 days to the petitioner after adjustment of amount already paid in accordance with Clause 3 of Memorandum of Intent dated 11.01.2013 as well as the inaction on the part of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in acting on the petitioner’s representations dated 01.08.2017, 14.05.2018 and 22.05.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent Bank to pay the Gratuity and Encashment of Earned Leave of the petitioner as per the Service Regulations of the 3rd respondent Bank and pass such other orders”.
2. The facts of the case are that pursuant to “Half a Million Jobs Programme” of the Government of India, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.390, dated 12.07.1973 for appointment of persons, who underwent Cooperative Training as Paid Secretaries in the Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit Societies (PACS) affiliated to District Cooperative Central Banks (DCCBs) in the State of Andhra Pradesh. For making such appointments, the 1st respondent constituted District Level Committees consisting of President of District Cooperative Central Bank, District Cooperative Officer and General Manager of DCCB of the respective Districts. The said Committees were also conferred with the powers regarding transfers and disciplinary action. About 2000 paid Secretaries were appointed by these Committees across the State on a consolidated pay of Rs.150/- per month. The paid secretaries so appointed were allotted to the PACSs to manage the affairs of the Societies under the administrative control of respective DCCBs.
3. Subsequently, they were being paid from out of the Common Cadre Fund contributed by the Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Limited (APCOB), DCCBs and PACSS. As the above said Paid Secretaries were appointed under “Half a Million Jobs Programme”, in order to provide a channel of recruitment to Paid Secretaries in DCCBs, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.773, dated 28.06.1983 providing recruitment on Category-V Personnel (Clerk/Cashier) in DCCBs from among the Paid Secretaries and In-Service Employees in 9:1 ratio respectively. After bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh and on amendment of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies, the decaderised Paid Secretaries became the employees of PACS. The ratio of 9:1 for recruitment of Category-V personnel in DCCBs fixed by the Government was subsequently modified vide G.O.Ms.No.521, F & A (Coop.III) Department, dated 28.09.1993, wherein the ratio of recruitment of Category-V posts in DCCBs was fixed as 5:4:1 i.e. 5 by direct recruitment, 4 from Paid Secretaries and one from In-Service employees of DCCBs.
4. In pursuance of the representations made by the Service Associations of de-caderised Paid Secretaries, employees appointed by the respective PACS as well as the employees of DCCBs, wherein certain issues relating to pay and allowance and other service matters were raised, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.1533, dated 05.12.2008 constituting a Three Member Committee consisting of the Managing Director, APCOB, the 2nd respondent and the Chief General Manager, NABARD, Andhra Pradesh Regional Office, Hyderabad to examine various issues. The said Committee after holding its meetings and negotiations with the Service Associations/representations of the employees of PACS and DCCBs, submitted interim report to the Government on 05.02.2009 making certain recommendations, out of which, one of the recommendations is that the d
Nayagarh Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs. Narayan Rath & Anr. [(1977) 3 SCC 576]
AI
Special Category Assistants who have completed 5 years of service in a DCCB are eligible for terminal benefits as per the service regulations of the DCCB, including gratuity and leave encashment, fro....
The court ruled that the computation of gratuity dues is under the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority, making a Writ Petition not maintainable when an alternative remedy exists.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive domain of the Controlling Authority for adjudication of disputes related to gratuity under Sec. 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, ....
Writ petition decision underscores that withholding terminal benefits violates statutory rights under labor law, mandating their release with interest.
Retirement benefits, including gratuity and leave encashment, are statutory rights under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, mandating timely payment regardless of the employer's financial situation.
An employee's resignation does not negate the right to gratuity and leave encashment, and any delay in payment of gratuity entitles the employee to interest as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The expression 'employer' in Sec. 2(f) of the Payment of Gratuity Act read with Sec. 13 (2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, would include 'employers'.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.