JUDGMENT :

Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.

1. These appeals are filed by the Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank to challenge the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.10.2020 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7359/2019 and other connected petitions. The Special Appeal (Writ) No. 503/2020 is treated as the lead appeal. We would be referring to the documents on record in the said appeal.

2. The writ petition was filed by the bank challenging an order dated 20.07.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act of 1972') partly confirming the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Act of 1972. The petitioner bank is a Gramin Bank operating in the State of Rajasthan. The respondent Kheem Singh Rathore was an officer of the bank. He retired on superannuation w.e.f. 30.09.2016. At the time of his retirement, the bank had paid him gratuity of Rs. 10,30,319/-. He later on approached the Controlling Authority and disputed the amount of gratuity paid to him by the employer bank. His grievance was that while calculating the gratuity, the bank had not taken into account the dearness allowance component of his pay. The bank opposed his application on the ground that the gratuity paid to him is as per the regulations framed by the bank. The Controlling Authority, by an order dated 28.03.2018 allowed the application. The said authority was of the opinion that the dearness allowance component ought to have been taken into account while computing the last pay drawn for the purpose of payment of gratuity. He also held that for every completed year of service beyond 30 years, the applicant would receive an additional gratuity at the rate of salary for one and a half months. The bank had pointed out that for the purpose of computing gratuity, the regulations framed make a distinction between an officer and other employees. The Controlling Authority was of the opinion that any such distinction would be opposed to the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution.

3. The bank challenged the said order of the Controlling Authority before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by an order dated 20.07.2020 confirmed the first portion of the order of the Controlling Authority, namely, that for the purpose of computing gratuity payable to the applicant concerned, dearness allowance should be taken into account. However, with respect to the second aspect of the matter, namely, additional weightage for service beyond 30 years, the Appellate Authority did not accept the view of the Controlling Authority and held that only half month's salary for completed year of service beyond 30 years would be payable. With this modification, the order of the Controlling Authority was confirmed.

4. The bank challenged the said orders before the High Court. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dismissed the bank's petition. The learned Single Judge referred to the definition of the term 'wages' contained in Section 2(s) of the Act of 1972. The learned Single Judge also referred to and relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of All India Gramin Bank Pensioners Organization Unit Rewa v. Madhyanchal Gramin Bank and another dated 06.09.2018, which was confirmed by the Division Bench. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that as per the provisions of the regulations of the bank as well as the Act of 1972, the employee would receive gratuity under either of the statutes, whichever is higher.

5. It appears that against the order of the Appellate Authority, which was in favour of the bank, by which the weightage for every completed year of service beyond 30 years was brought down to half month instead of one and a half month's salary, the applicants had not filed any writ petition. They had instead, in the replies to the petitions, raised this issue. The learned Single Judge ex