ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.

1. The short question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether or not, the appellant-bank could attach/adjust the gratuity payable to the respondent-employee upon termination of his service, on the ground that moneys are due and payable by the employee to the Bank on account of loan that had been advanced by the Bank to the employee during the tenure of his service.

2. The respondent no. 1 employee (hereinafter referred to as Bidyut) had admittedly taken a housing loan from the Bank. When he was working as Computer Operator in the clerical cadre at the Kulpi Branch of the Bank, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. Hearing was conducted. By an order dated 26th May, 2009, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of “dismissal without notice” in terms of clause 6(a) of the Memo of Settlement dated 10th April, 2002. Bidyut has challenged the disciplinary proceeding and the order passed therein by way of a separate writ petition, being WP No. 10301 (W) of 2009, which is pending before this Court.

3. Although Bidyut was dismissed from service, the same was without any financial implication inasmuch as admittedly the Bank has not suffered any pecuniary loss by reason of the alleged misconduct of Bidyut. Admittedly, gratuity of Rs. 3.5 lakhs is payable to Bidyut as would appear from an internal memo dated 30th May, 2013 issued by the Chief Manager, Establishment Division to the Chief Manager, Corporate Account Department of the Bank.

4. By reason of non-payment of gratuity to him, Bidyut filed an application under section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act (in short PGA) read with Rule 10(1) of the PGA Rules, 1972. Orders were passed on such application directing the bank to pay the gratuity amount to Bidyut. Upon the Bank failing to comply with such order, Bidyut made an application under section 8 of the PGA and a show cause notice was issued to the Bank calling for an explanation as to why certificate under section 18 of the PGA could not be issued against the Bank. During the pendency of such proceeding, the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- was deposited by the Bank in a savings account held in Bidyut’s name with the Malda Branch of the Bank. However, the petitioner could not operate the same since the account had been frozen by the Bank prior to making such deposit. In the above background when the proceedings again came up before the Controlling Authority, a certificate was issued to the Certificate Officer for an amount of Rs. 3.50 lakhs along with simple interest with a request to recover the said amount from the Bank along with compound interest thereon with effect from 27.05.2015 as arrears of land revenue and pay the same to the petitioner.

5. In view of the failure/neglect of the Certificate Officer to recover the said amount and pay the same to Bidyut, the latter approached this Court by filing WP No. 15420(W) of 2017.

6. The Learned Single Judge allowed the writ application. The operative portion of the learned Judge’s order reads as follows:-

“In such circumstances, the respondent no. 2 is directed to take immediate steps for the purpose of recovering the amount due to the petitioner from the bank as a public demand, and make over the same to the petitioner forthwith, on realization. It is expected that, the respondent no. 2 will commence the recovery proceedings within a week from the date of communication of this order to him. He will endeavour to complete the proceedings within a fortnight thereafter. He will make over the amount due to the petitioner immediately on receipt of the same.”

7. The learned Judge held that the Bank did not take the defence of exercise of Bank’s lien in the proceeding under the PGA. The Bank accepted the direction of the Controlling Authority and acted in purported compliance thereof. It was further held that the Banker’s lien cannot be exercised over the terminal benefits of an employee. Sections 4(6), 13 and 14 of the PGA, were noticed