The exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in entertaining a writ petition, the absence of pension provision for a retired employee, and the applicability of cited judgments to the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. This intra court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Rules of the Court has been preferred by the appellant-District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Sitapur whereby judgment and order dated 24.12.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15591 (S/S) of 2019 filed by the respondent herein (who was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge) has been allowed and the resolution of the Committee of Management of the appellant-Bank dated 07.10.2013 so far as the same relates to respondent-petitioner has been quashed and the appellant-Bank has further been directed to release and pay the amount of gratuity of Rs.6,17,905/-to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment. Learned Single Judge has further directed that payment shall be made within six weeks from the date a copy of said judgment and order is produced before the authorities of the appellant-Bank concerned.

2. Heard Sri A.R. Khan, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sridhar Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent and perused the record available before us in this appeal.

3. Sri A.R. Khan, learned counsel for appellant-Bank has raised two grounds while challenging the judgment and order dated 24.12.2021 passed by learned Single Judge. Firstly, it has been argued by Sri A.R. Khan, learned counsel for appellant that learned Single Judge has erred in law in entertaining the writ petition in the wake of availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Secondly, it has also been argued on behalf of appellant-Bank that judgments cited on its behalf were not discussed and considered by learned Single Judge and that learned Single Judge has committed manifest error of law in coming to the conclusion that the respondent-petitioner was entitled to be paid the amount of gratuity.

4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel representing the respective parties.

5. From a perusal of the judgment and order under appeal herein, what we find is that it is not that the issue of maintainability of writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has considered the same and has leaned in favour of exercising his discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even in the wake of availability of alternative remedy giving the reasons. Learned Single Judge, while exercising his discretion to entertain the petition, has clearly stated that the writ petition was liable to be entertained even in the wake of availability of alternative remedy for the reason that the respondent-petitioner is a senior citizen, who has retired way back on 03.06.2013. Learned Single Judge has further observed that in respect of the employees retiring from the appellant-Bank there is no provision of pension and it is the amount of gratuity which is paid to the retired employees. It has also been observed by learned Single Judge that the principle that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be entertained only on exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and the discretion; rather than rule of exclusion of jurisdiction of this Court. Learned Single Judge has also made a reference in this regard to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishna Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771.

6. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded and observations made by learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal, what we find is that learned Single Judge proceeded to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India considering the facts and circumstances of the