SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(MP) 396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Yadav, J.
Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Central Bank of India - Petitioner
Versus
Anil Madfiav Chincholkar - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5788 of 2014
Decided On : 13-02-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Arvind K. Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent:T.K. Malik, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, have an overriding effect on any inconsistent regulations or enactments, and that compulsory retirement does not disentitle an employee from gratuity.

Headnote:

Gratuity - Compulsory Retirement - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Section 4(6), Section 14 - The court discussed the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, specifically focusing on Section 4(6) and Section 14, and their overriding effect on the Central Bank of India's Service Regulations and Pension Regulations. The court highlighted the interpretation of the Act's provisions and their application in the case, emphasizing that compulsory retirement does not disentitle an employee from gratuity.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a manager in the Central Bank of India, was compulsorily retired and denied service gratuity due to a departmental inquiry and pending criminal prosecution. The petitioner contested the claim based on the bank's regulations and the pending criminal proceeding.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent's compulsory retirement and pending criminal prosecution did not disentitle him from gratuity, emphasizing that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, override the bank's regulations.

Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement to gratuity in the case of compulsory retirement and pending criminal prosecution, and the conflict between the bank's regulations and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, have an overriding effect on the bank's regulations, and that compulsory retirement does not disentitle an employee from gratuity.

Final Decision: The petition failed, and the court dismissed it, emphasizing that the respondent was entitled to gratuity despite compulsory retirement and pending criminal prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Yadav, J.

1. Shri Arvind K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri T.K. Malik, learned Counsel for respondent.

With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner calls in question the correctness of order-dated 17.12.2013; whereby, the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'Act of 1972'), dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

3. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was directed against the order-dated 14.5.2013 passed by the Controlling Authority whereby, in exercise of the powers under sub-section (4) of section 7 of Act of 1972, held the respondent entitled to receive gratuity amount along with the interest thereon @ 10% per annum till date of this order.

4. Relevant facts giving rise to controversy, briefly, are that respondent/employee as Manager in the Central Bank of India was subjected to Departmental Inquiry vide charge-sheet dated 22.10.2009 for committing irregularities in disbursement of loan.

5. The departmental enquiry culminated in the order of punishment of compulsory retirement in terms of Regulation 4(h) of the Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976. And, that a First Information Report bearing No. RC0092009A0012 dated 29.8.2009 was also lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the respondent on the charge of demanding/accepting illegal gratification from the borrower.

6. Respondent since was compulsorily retired and was subjected to criminal prosecution was denied the service gratuity on the basis of Regulation 46(1)(e) of the Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 and Regulation 46 of the Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, which respectively stipulate:-

7. Regulation 46 of 1979 stipulates -

"46. Gratuity:

(1) Every Officer shall be eligible for gratuity on :-

(a) retirement

(b) death

(c) disablement rendering him unfit for further service as certified by a medical officer approved by the Bank

(d) resignation after completing ten years of continuous service; or

(e) termination of service in any other way except by way of punishment after completion of 10 years of service.

(2) The amount of gratuity payable to an Officer shall be one month's pay for every completed years of service, subject to a maximum of 15 months pay. Provided that where an Officer has completed more than 30 years, he shall be eligible by way of gratuity for an additional amount at the rate of one half of a month's pay for each completed year of service beyond 30 years :

Provided further that pay for the purpose of Gratuity for an Officer who ceased to be in service during the period 1.7.1993 to 31.10.1994 shall be with regard to scale of pay as specified in sub regulation (1) of Regulation 4:

Provided also that pay for the purpose of Gratuity of an officer who ceased to be in service during the period 1.4.1998 to 31.10.1999 shall be with regard to scale of pay as specified in sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 4.

Note: If the fraction of service beyond completed years of service is 6 months or more, gratuity will be paid prorata for the period.

Regulation 46 of the Regulations, 1995 stipulates -

Provisional Pension. - (1) An employee who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or departmental proceedings are continued, a provisional pension, equal to the maximum pension which would have been admissible to him, would be allowed subject to adjustment against final retirement benefit sanctioned to him, upon conclusion of the proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld etc, either permanently or for a specified period.

2. In such cases the gratuity shall not be paid to such an employee unti
















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top