IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

G. NARENDAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Srinivas Basava, Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri Syed Arif Basha, Learned Counsel, Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, Learned G.P (S-I) and Sri S. Brahmananda Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2. The appellant i.e. the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. is before this Court being aggrieved by the Order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 39157 of 2018. The Learned Single Judge by the order impugned has been pleased to appreciate the following prayer:

“to issue an order or direction more particularly 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 2nd to 4th respondents in acting on the petitioners representations dated 17.09.2018 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 order or orders.”

3. While appreciating the same, the Learned Single Judge has been pleased to grant relief in the following manner and the relevant Paras 10 to 12 of the order reads as under:

“10. Paragraph No. 12 of the Judgment passed in W.A. No. 139 of 2023 reads thus:

(12) Therefore, from a reading of this Memorandum of intent it is clear that terminal benefits to Special Category Assistants, who were taken into services as on 01.03.2009 and thereafter rendered 5 years of service are as per the Point No. 1, for the others like the writ petitioner Point No. 3 is applicable. Admittedly, the writ petitioner joined the bank on 02.09.2009 and retired on 30.03.2016 (Para 11 of the counter affidavit). Therefore, it is clear that the writ petitioner has completed 5 years of service and is, therefore, entitled to terminal benefits as per the service regulations.

11. As per the orders passed in W.P. No. 28820 of 2018 as well as W.A. No. 139 of 2023, the employee who has completed 5 years of service in the Bank (DCCB) is entitled for 20 months Gratuity and 240 days Encashment of Earned Leave. In the present case, the petitioner was recruited by the 3rd respondent in the year 1978 as a Paid secretary under the “Half a Million Jobs Programme.” In pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 67, dated 20.02.2009, the petitioner was reverted back to the service of the 3rd respondent as Special Category Assistant and thereafter petitioner was retired from service on 31.12.2016. Thus, the petitioner has completed more than 5 years of service in the Bank. Therefore, the petitioner has come into zone of consideration for the entitlement of 20 months Gratuity and 240 days Encashment of Earned Leave.

12. The issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P. No. 28820 of 2018 dated 31.10.2022.”

4. On a reading of Para 12, it is seen that the Learned Single Judge has been pleased to place reliance on the order passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in W.P. No. 28820 of 2018, dated 31.10.2022, against which W.A. No. 139 of 2023 has been preferred. Copies of the orders in W.P. No. 28820 of 2018 and in W.A. No. 139 of 2023 are enclosed along with the material papers of this Writ Appeal.

5. It is stated that the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 28820 of 2018 proceeded to compute the dues and issued directions for payment of the same. Aggrieved thereby, W.A. No. 139 of 2023 has been preferred. A Coordinate Bench of this Court has been pleased to affirm the orders of the Learned Single Judge and in Para 16, it placed reliance on the ruling in S.S. Rana vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, (2006) 11 SCC 634 to hold