Point of Law: Employees of bank were found to be eligible for gratuity as per 1972 Act and, hence, they were found to be entitled to benefit of Regulation 72(1) of 2010 Regulation.

JUDGMENT :

R.M. Chhaya, J.-

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1697/2018, the original respondents have preferred this writ appeal.

2. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Mochahari, appearing for the appellant, and Ms. D. Borgihain, learned counsel, with Ms. G. Purkayastha, appearing for the respondent.

3. The following noteworthy facts arise out of this appeal:

(i) The respondent was working in the appellant bank in the post of Junior Management Scale-I Officer since 28.05.2012. As per the record, the respondent was transferred from Head Office of the appellant bank to Nalbari Branch on 27.11.2017. The record indicates that on such transfer having been made, the respondent filed representation before the Chairman of the bank to reconsider her transfer. However, as the said representation was not considered favourably, she tendered her resignation vide her letter dated 27.11.2017 from the post of Assistant Manager with effect from 03.03.2018. The appellant bank accepted the resignation so filed by the respondent and relieved her from service with effect from 03.03.2018. On 16.01.2018, the respondent filed an application before the appellant bank for payment of gratuity. Upon considering the same, the appellant bank, vide a communication dated 08.02.2018 informed the respondent that as per the provision of Regulation 72(2)(d) of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “2010 Regulation”), as the respondent has not completed 10 years of service but has, in fact, completed only 5 years and 10 months of service till the date of her resignation, she will not be eligible for any gratuity.

(ii) The said decision taken by the appellant came to be challenged by the respondent by way of filing the present writ petition mainly on the ground that as per section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “1972 Act” for the sake of brevity), as the respondent has completed 5 years of service, she would be entitled to gratuity. In the writ petition, the respondent/original petitioner, relying upon the chronology of service rendered by her, further contended that as per the provisions of the 1972 Act and, more particularly, section 14 of the 1972 Act, the 2010 Regulations cannot be brought into effect to deny the benefit confirmed by section 4 of the 1972 Act. It is also contended by the respondent/ original petitioner that as she has put in 5 years 10 months service, she would be entitled to gratuity equivalent to an amount or more than 5 months’ salary. In the writ petition it was also contended by the respondent/original petitioner that the appellant/original respondent have misconstrued the provisions contained in Regulation 72 of the 2010 Regulation and have thus deprived the respondent/original petitioner from her legitimate right of payment of gratuity and, inter alia, prayed as under:

“In the premises aforesaid it is therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition and call for the records, issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the relief sought for in this application should not be granted and on cause or causes being shown and on hearing the parties and perusal of records be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay the gratuity due to the petitioner on her resignation from service and calculated as per Regulation 72(3) of the Service Regulation of 2010 along with interest and/or pass any other such order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”

(iii) The appellant herein/original respondent filed a detailed affidavit-in-opposition and denied the contentions raised by the respondent/original petitioner. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that as the respondent has not fulfilled the conditions of eligibility as per Re