JUDGMENT :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

This order will dispose of WP(C) Nos.3086, 4802, 4806, 4813, 5384, 5387, 5389, 5392, 5816, 5901, 6068, 6071, 6085, 6086, 6087, 6089, 6090, 6097, 6170, 6846, 6851 and 1930/2018.

2. Heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. A. Gayan and Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4; and Ms. D. Borgohain and Ms. J. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the private respondents in all the cases.

3. In all the writ petitions, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and its Chairman are the petitioners.

4. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, they have challenged the impugned orders passed by the Controlling Authority under Section 3 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, who is also the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Silchar whereby the employer i.e., Assam Gramin Vikash Bank was directed to pay additional payment with simple interest as part of the total gratuity in addition to Rs.10 lakhs already paid to the retired employees (private respondents in this bunch of writ petitions).

5. Though facts are not in dispute and are more or less identical in all the cases, for better appreciation, it would be apposite to take up the facts of WP(C) No.3086/2018 which may be taken up as the lead case.

6. Petitioner No.1 is a Regional Rural Bank set up in the State of Assam under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 by amalgamation of four existing gramin banks in the State. Respondent No.5 Sri Jnanendra Purkayastha was an employee under the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Bank). On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service of the Bank on 31.12.2014. On his superannuation, he was paid an amount of Rs.10 lakhs as gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Contending that though he was paid Rs.10 lakhs as gratuity, he was entitled to payment of higher amount as gratuity under the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (2010 Regulations), as amended. According to respondent No.5, he was entitled to a total amount of Rs.21,95,612.47 as gratuity and after deduction of the amount already paid to him, he was entitled to an additional amount of Rs.11,95,612.47. On receipt of such application, the same was registered as Application No.3/17 before the Controlling Authority. Claim of respondent No.5 was contested by the petitioners by submitting their response. On consideration, competent authority framed five issues for consideration; out of which this litigation is concerned with two. One of the issues framed was whether the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 had the jurisdiction to entertain the application by invoking the provisions of Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The other issue which is relevant was whether the applicant was justified in claiming basic pay plus dearness allowance (DA) plus FPP for the purpose of calculation of gratuity or whether the claim of the employer about "last wages drawn" would mean simple basic pay sans DA and FPP. By the order dated 19.01.2018, Controlling Authority answered both the above two issues in favour of respondent No.5 whereafter an amount of Rs.15,29,439.00 was quantified to be the total gratuity which was required to be paid by the petitioners to respondent No.5. After deducting Rs.10 lakhs already paid, the amount that was required to be paid by the petitioners to respondent No.5 was Rs.5,29,439.00 and it was directed that the said amount would carry simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum w.e.f. 07.03.2015 till the date of final payment.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, present writ petition has been filed.

8. Similar challenge has been made in all the other connected writ petitions.

9. This Court by order dated 18.05.2018 had issued notice and passed an interim order to the effect that since an amount of Rs.10 lakhs was already paid as gratuity t