JUDGMENT :

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. Whether the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'), envisage to treat the class of 'Officers' and the class of 'Employees' of the Employer-Bank differently in claiming the quantum of 'Gratuity' payable under the Regulations with reference to their “Pay” and the mode of calculation ?

2. This is the question re-framed by us, after considering the core issue raised by the Appellant / Writ Petitioner-Bank and the point considered by the learned Single Judge as to whether the pay for computation of Gratuity in the case of 'Officers' of the Bank would take in the Dearness Allowances as well or not; as being done in the case of 'Employees' of the Bank, dealt with under the two separate provisos to Regulation 72(3) of the Regulations.

3. All these appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dealing with the grievance projected in different writ petitions of similar nature.

4. Heard Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants in all cases and Mr. N.K. Vyas, the learned counsel, who appeared for the party/private Respondents. There is no factual dispute and the point to be considered is purely a legal question, in connection with the interpretation of "Pay", as defined under Regulation 2(m) of the Regulations; in the light of definition of the terms "Salary" under Regulation 2(o) and "Emoluments" under Regulation 2(i) of the Regulations.

5. The Respondents-'Officers' were serving the Appellant-Bank and on attaining the age of superannuation, they came out of the service; when the Gratuity payable was worked out and paid to them. After accepting the said amount, the above said 'Officers' putforth a claim that the calculation made by the Employer-Bank was quite wrong and that they were entitled to get more amounts in terms of the Regulations; by virtue of the statutory mandate under Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act'), stipulating that nothing in Section 4 shall affect the right of an employee {the term 'employee' defined under Section 2(e) of the Act also constitutes an 'officer' as well, having not been separately defined, unlike the Regulations, where separate definition exists} to receive better terms of Gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the Employer and the extent of the Gratuity payable to an Employee (constituting both the 'Officer' and 'Employee' having not been separately defined under the Act), as specified under sub-Section (6) of Section 4 of the Act.

6. The prayer in the claim petition filed before the Controlling Authority was opposed from the part of the Employer-Bank, contending that the Pay to be reckoned for calculation of Gratuity to an 'Officer' was different from that of 'Employee', by virtue of the difference in the mode of calculation, as clearly provided under the 'Regulations' and hence that whatever payable to the 'Officers'/Claimants, had already been calculated strictly in terms of the relevant provisions of law and satisfied. However, the contention of the Appellant/Employer-Bank was repelled and the Controlling Authority held that the Pay in the case of 'Officers'/Claimants will take in the Dearness Allowance as well and accordingly a finding was rendered, giving appropriate directions to have the balance amount paid with interest as specified. Though, this was subjected to challenge before the Appellate Authority, at the instance of the Appellant/Employer-Bank, it did not turn to be fruitful, leading to the writ petitions filed before the learned Single Judge.

7. It is seen from the judgment under challenge that the rival contentions were appreciated with reference to the relevant provisions in the Regulations and also in the Act. After placing reliance on the verdict passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which stood in favour of the 'Officers'/Claimants and observing that