O R D E R

The petitioner is seeking to challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority and order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the Controlling Authority, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PG Act, 1972’ for short) read with Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 was rejected.

2. Heard Sri Ganesh Rao, petitioner-party-in-person, Sri Syed Kashif Ali, learned counsel for Sri Pradeep S. Sawkar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned DSGI for respondent No.2.

3. Petitioner joined the service of the respondent-

Bank and retired from services of the respondent-Bank on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.2012, after completing 38 years 11 months and 24 days of continuous service. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner though was paid terminal benefits on superannuation, however, the gratuity payable to the petitioner was not properly reckoned as the respondent-Bank has not paid the gratuity under the Beneficial Scheme of Gratuity out of three schemes of Gratuity, namely, a) the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; b) Bank of Baroda Officers’ Service Regulations, 1979 (“the Service Regulations, 1979” for short); c) Bank of Baroda Gratuity Fund Rules and Regulations, 1975 (“the Fund Rules, 1975” for short) and the calculations arrived by the respondent-bank is under the PG Act, 1972 and Service Regulations, 1979 and has paid Rs.10,00,000/- under the Act, however, the petitioner’s gratuity under the Fund Rules, 1975 ought to have been determined by the respondent-

bank, which is beneficial to the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner raised a dispute for payment of differential amount of gratuity before the Controlling Authority in Form No.N, stating that:

a) Better terms of gratuity was not considered;

b) Method of calculations is not correct i.e., 26 days a month not considered;

c) Additional gratuity for service more than 30 years at

45 days for every completed year of service was not considered;

d) Reckonable components of wages/pay/basic salary are not properly determined.

5. The respondent-bank appeared and filed objections, inter alia, contending that the gratuity amount has been calculated based on the provisions of the PG Act, 1972 and Service Regulations, 1979 and higher amount of the two has been paid to the petitioner, and that the officer who had joined service prior to 01.07.1979 can only claim Additional Retirement Benefit (“ARB”) or the Extra Gratuity for service beyond 30 years.

6. The Controlling Authority, on the material placed, framed the following issues for consideration:

“i. Whether the applicants are justified in their claim for inclusion of DA & SA fro calculation of gratuity under BoBOSR & Fund Rules?

ii. Whether the applicants are justified in their claim for gratuity at the rate of 45 days for every year beyond the service of 30 years?

iii. Whether the applicants are eligible for ARB as well as extra gratuity for service beyond 30 years?”

7. The Controlling Authority, looking into the material placed before it and considering the three schemes and holding that the applicant is eligible for better terms of gratuity as per Section 4(5) of the PG Act, 1972, held at paragraph No.14 as under:

“14. With regard to issue no.5(iii), there is no dispute that there exists an Additional Retirement Benefit (ARB), which provides for 6 months gross emoluments on completion of 25 years of service for the officers and 30 years of service for award staff. Under the BoBOSR & the Fund Rules, officers can choose between the ARB and the additional gratuity for the period of service beyond 30 years. Thus both the schemes have clearly left the choice to the officers/employees. I do not see the merit in the contention of the applicants that they should be eligible for both. The reason for my conclusion is that the applicants have not