Court determined the proper calculation of gratuity must include all relevant pay components under the payment of gratuity act, affirming the petitioner's entitlement for higher gratuity following dismissal without moral turpitude allegations.

O R D E R

The above Writ Petition is filed for the following reliefs:-

"Calling for the concerned record from the Respondents No.1 and 2, quash the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 22.11.2018 in Gratuity Application No. 36/24/ 2016/ RLC/ TVM in so far as restricting the gratuity payable to the petitioner as Rs.3,50,000/- and the order of the 1st Respondent dated 26.03.2021 in G.A.No. 146 of 2019 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently , direct the 3rd Respondent to pay the petitioner the gratuity payable as Rs.11,15,236/- in terms of the central Bank of India (Officers') service regulations, 1979 along with interest at the rate of 10% from 30.09.2009 till the date of payment after deducting the payment already made viz., of Rs.6,88,876/-"

2. The facts are briefly extracted hereinbelow:-

3. The petitioner had joined the services of the 3rd respondent bank on 28.10.1974. During his tenure with the bank, he had served at various branches in different capacities, including as a Branch Manager at the Kumbakonam Branch from August 2001 to May 2004, and as a Senior Manager at the Mandaveli Branch, Chennai, from 09.06.2004 to 12.05.2007. While the petitioner was serving at the Alleppey Branch of the 3rd respondent bank, he was issued with a Charge Memo alleging irregularities in the sanctioning of loans during his tenure at the afore-mentioned two branches. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry flouting principles of natural justice was conducted and the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 29.09.2009. An appeal to the appellate authority of the bank also ended in a failure.

4. The petitioner would submit that the order of dismissal did not allege any offense of moral turpitude on the part of the petitioner or that he has caused any financial loss to the 3rd respondent bank on account of his willful omission or negligence. The 3rd respondent bank had not issued any notice of forfeiture of gratuity within time and there was no order forfeiting his gratuity.

5. The petitioner would submit that at the time of his dismissal he had rendered 35 years of service with the 3rd respondent bank and since he has rendered more that 5 years of continuous service he is entitled to gratuity under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter called as the “PG Act”).

6. The petitioner would submit that as per Section 4 (5) of the PG Act an employee is entitled to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer. It is also submitted that Clause 46 of the Central Bank of India (Officers’) Service Regulations 1979 (hereinafter called as the "Regulations 1979"), enumerates the manner in which the gratuity has to be paid to an officer of the Bank. As per the said provision the gratuity payable for an officer is one month pay for every completed year of service subject to maximum of 15 month pay upto 30 years of service and when the officer had completed more than 30 years of service, he will be eligible for gratuity for an additional amount at the rate of one half of the monthly pay for each completed year of service beyond 30 years. Further, if the fraction of service beyond completed years of service is six months or more, the gratuity has to be paid on a pro rata basis for such period. Clause 46(1) of the Regulations 1979 makes it clear that for computing gratuity, Fixed Personal Pay and the Professional Qualification pay should also be taken into account as part of wages, apart from the Basic Pay and the Dearness Allowance.

7. Therefore, as per the calculation of the petitioner, he is entitled to gratuity of Rs.11,15,235.54/- along with interest at 10% per annum from the day next to the date of his dismissal.

8. Since the 3