ORAL ORDER

1. Rejoinder supplied by learned advocate Ms.Bhavsar is ordered to be taken on record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia seeking quashing and setting aside the action of the respondents in giving the benefit of gratuity on the basis of revised pay-scale from 01.11.1994 and direct the respondents to give the benefit of revised gratuity to the petitioners from 01.07.1993.

3. As the prayer will suggest that the petitioners are praying for benefits w.e.f. 01.07.1993 in the writ petition, which is filed in 2018. It is the case of the petitioners that they are entitled for revised amount of gratuity. All of the petitioners have retired between

01.11.1992 to 31.10.1994.

FACTS:

4. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) called joint note was arrived at between the Indian Bank Association (IBA) representing the public sector banks and various officers’ organizations on 23.06.1995 detailing wage revisions and other attendant benefits. As per the MoU, the wage revision was given retrospective effect from 01.11.1992. It was provided that the actual monetary benefit on account of such revision in salary and allowances will be made available only to those, who were in service on 01.07.1993 and thereafter. Different dates were however, mentioned in respect of revision and payment of HRA, DA, PF, CCA etc. It was also made clear that in respect of those, who retired between 01.11.1992 to 31.10.1994, the benefits of pay revision will not include revision of gratuity.

4.1 The petitioners and Bank of India Retired Officers’ Association approached the respondent- Bank by way of a detailed representation on 19.07.2012 for computation of gratuity on the basis of pay revised w.e.f. 01.07.1993 and they have made follow up vigorously. The said MoU was implemented in the year 1995-96 and the respondent Bank had already decided not to make any payment of difference in gratuity amount.

SUBMISSIONS

5. Learned advocate Ms.Bhavsar appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgement of the High Court of Kerala at Earnakulam passed in O.P. No.3502 of 2002, which was allowed by the Court in the similar set of the facts and was challenged by Syndicate Bank in an appeal before the Division Bench of High Court of Kerala at Earnakulam vide W.A. No.1584 of 2002, which was dismissed on 08.08.2005. She has submitted that thus, the petitioners cannot be discriminated as High Court of Kerala at Earnakulam has granted the writ petition seeking similar prayers. Reliance is also placed on the judgement of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5525 of 2012, whereby she has submitted that the MoU (Joint Note), signed on 23.06.1995 has no jurisdiction to override the relevant provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. She has submitted that if the wages are revised retrospectively, the amount of gratuity is required to be revised. Finally, it is submitted that the petitioners made all efforts for justice during last 15 to 20 years, which is confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of retired employees of the Syndicate Bank. She has further placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. M. Sethumadhvan and Ors., (2017) 13 S.C.C. 298 has submitted that the Apex Court has finally awarded the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to such employees, who are similarly situated to the present petitioners. Reliance is also placed on the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court dated 10.10.2017 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1748 of 2005, which has been passed after considering the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of M. Sethumadhvan (supra), whereby the Division Bench has ordered to pay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus, she has submitted that the present petition may be allowed.

6. While opposing the writ petition, learned advocate Mr.Devnani appearing for the respondent- Bank has vehemently submitted that the petitioners are fence sitters since all of them were waiting for the decision of the Apex Cou