JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Akhilesh Kalra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Avinash Chandra as well Shri Ved Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing mode and Shri Gaurav Srivastava, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 4.

2. The respondent No. 4 (herein-after referred to as the “employee”) was appointed on the post of Shroff/Godown Keeper on 09.08.1978 in the petitioner-Bank. He was dismissed from service in the year 1995 and remained out of service till 2000, whereafter certain proceedings were held before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow, which set aside the termination order imposing a condition that the period during which the employee remained suspended would be treated as “no work no pay” period. The said order was confirmed by this Court in Writ C No. 49519 of 2004. On 03.02.2009, the employee was placed under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary enquiry on the charge of embezzlement and misappropriation of funds. A charge sheet was issued to the employee on 08.05.2009 containing charges of misappropriation of amount.

3. The employee challenged the charge sheet by filing writ petition and, thereafter, various miscellaneous and other proceedings were held, which are not necessary to be stated as the issue involved in the present writ petition is as to whether withholding of gratuity payable to the employee is according to law or not. However, it is relevant that pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, a final order of punishment was passed on 29.09.2015 dismissing the respondent No. 4 from services in terms of clause 6 (a) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 and it was held that since the charges had been proved in the enquiry and were grave in nature and reveal moral turpitude, the period spent by the employee under suspension would be treated as “one not spent on duty” and he would not be entitled to any monetary or other benefits other than the subsistence allowance, already paid to him.

4. It is alleged that the respondent-employee filed a writ petition being Writ A No. 56257 of 2015 (Satya Prakash Tripathi vs The Chairman, Indian Overseas Bank and 3 others) praying for a writ of mandamus directing the Bank to release the retiral benefits, however during the course of hearing, it was informed to the Court that the respondent-employee had been dismissed from services on 29.09.2015 and, consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court by order dated 02.11.2015, granting liberty to the employee to file a fresh writ petition challenging the termination order dated 29.09.2015. There is no dispute about the fact that no writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 29.09.2015, which became final.

5. In the meantime, the respondent-employee was issued a notice dated 31.07.2015 informing him that his retirement was due on 31.07.2015 on completion of 60 years as the age of superannuation and insofar as the disciplinary proceedings were concerned, it was informed that the said proceedings were pending at the enquiry stage and that the employee would be deemed to be in service for the purpose of completion of disciplinary proceedings after the date of his age of superannuation i.e. 31.07.2015. Admittedly, the respondent-employee retired on 31.07.2015 and termination order was passed after his retirement on 29.09.2015. The respondent-employee submitted an application dated 13.08.2015 seeking release of terminal benefits and also filed an application under section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (herein-after referred to as the “Act of 1972”) before the Controlling Authority on 16.11.2015, which was objected to by the petitioner-Bank by filing written submissions/objections dated 10.02.2016.

6. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 29.09.2016, directed payment of maximum amount of gratuity amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/-(rupees ten lac) to the employee along with 10% simple interest w.e.f. 01.08.201