JUDGMENT

P. Sam Koshy, J. - Since the issue involved in the bunch of writ petitions and the cause of action also being the same, all these writ petitions are being decided by this common order.

2. In all these writ petitions the challenge is to the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner Bank thereby affirming the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. (Since the date of passing of the orders by the two authorities i.e. the Appellate Authority & the Controlling Authority are different, the dates are not being deliberately mentioned, the contents of all the orders are identical.)

3. The common facts running all these writ petitions are that the respondent no.1 in all these writ petitions were officers of the petitioner Bank. After serving the Bank for a considerable period of time, all the respondent no.1 officers stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation on different dates. After their retirement, in the process of settling their retiral dues, the Bank paid certain amount towards Gratuity to each of the respondent officers which according to the respondent no.1/officers was erroneously calculated. According to the respondent officers, they were entitled for much more than what was calculated by the petitioner Bank. The respondent no.1/officers accordingly filed a claim application under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act for the difference of gratuity before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act i.e. the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central).

4. After due consideration of the pleadings and contentions put forth on either side, the learned Controlling Authority vide its order dated 20.02.2019 allowed the application holding that the applicants therein are entitled for much more gratuity than what has been granted to them and passed an order. The amount of gratuity in each of the cases is different that is why this Court is not referring to any fixed amount.

5. The order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Controlling Authority was subjected to challenge before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) located at Raipur. The Appellate Authority also, after due consideration of the contentions put forth on either side, affirmed the order of the Controlling Authority thereby rejecting the appeal of the petitioner Bank. It is these two orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Controlling Authority which is under challenge in these bunch of writ petitions.

6. The main dispute in all the writ petitions so also before the authorities concerned was, as to what would be the pay which would be taken into consideration for calculating the amount of gratuity.

7. On consideration of the submissions made by either party to the dispute, the core issue which needs consideration in these bunch of writ petitions is whether in the process of quantifying the amount of gratuity payable to the respondent no.1 officers, the dearness allowance would be treated as part of pay or not.

8. There are two provisions of law which need to be considered in the process of deciding the issue involved in these cases. First is the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which is a central Act (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1972"). Second is the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees)Service Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred as "the Regulations of 2013").

9. Initially when all the respondent no.1 officers retired from service, the Bank gave them gratuity of rupees ten lakhs as that was the ceiling limit under the Act of 1972. Since the provisions under the Act of 1972 as also the Regulations of the petitioner Bank envisaged a clause that the Officers shall be entitled for the benefits under that provision which is more beneficial between the two. Based upon that when the petitioner Bank calculated the payment of gratuity payable to each of the responden