IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18597 of 2019

======================================================

Suresh Kumar Shrivastava Son of Raghu Nandan Prasad, R/o Vikramaditya

Bhawan, Garibnath Road, Opp. Garibanath Temple, Chhata Bazar,

Barhanpura, Muzaffarpur 842001

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Central Bank of India Chandermukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai

2.

Managing Director and CEO Central Bank of India, Central Office,

Chandermukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021

3.

General Manager HRD, Central Bank of India, Central Office, Nariman

Point, Mumbai 400021

4.

The Assistant General Manager Retiral Benefits Department, Mumbai Main

Office Building, 4th Floor, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023

5.

Chief Manager Retiral Benefits Department, Mumbai Main Office Building,

4th Floor, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Priyank Samdarshi, Adv.

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

ORAL ORDER

5

04-02-2021

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a

direction upon the respondent- Bank to pay the differential

amount of gratuity to the petitioner as per the service regulation

and the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 along

with interest.

After the matter was heard for a while, it has become

clear that the petitioner has opted for the applicability of the

Central Bank of India (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979

where the mode of calculation and payment of gratuity has been

mentioned in Regulation 46 and the definition of pay has been

Patna High Court CWJC No.18597 of 2019(5) dt.04-02-2021

2/4

given in Regulation 3(k). It appears that the definition of pay as

mentioned in the aforesaid regulations is at variance with the

definition of wages under the payment of gratuity Act, 1972. It

has also come to the notice of the Court that the amount of

gratuity, payable to the petitioner, as stipulated under the

payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, carries a ceiling to the tune of

Rs. 3, 50,000/-, considering the fact that the petitioner had

superannuated from the service of the Bank on 31.07.2009,

however, under the service Regulation of the respondent Bank,

the petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs. 6,39,641/- on the head

of gratuity. It is further apparent that either the petitioner can opt

for payment of gratuity as per the provisions contained in

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or as per the provisions

contained in the service Regulations of the respondent Bank and

as far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner has

admittedly opted for the applicability of the Service Regulations

of the respondent Bank, hence, the Bank has accordingly

computed and paid gratuity to the petitioner in accordance with

the mode of calculation provided for under the Service

Regulations of the respondent Bank, resulting in greater benefit

to the petitioner herein than what he would have got on the head

of gratuity, in case calculation was made in accordance with the

Patna High Court CWJC No.18597 of 2019(5) dt.04-02-2021

3/4

provisions contained in Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It is also

clear that either the gratuity scheme provided for, under the

service Regulations of the respondent Bank can be adopted or

the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 can be

opted, for the purposes of calculation of gratuity amount, but the

provisions of both cannot be applied in part simultaneously for

calculating the amount of gratuity. Thus, the gratuity amount has

to be computed, either by applying the provisions contained in

Service Regulation of the respondent Bank or by only

considering the provisions contained in Payment of Gratuity

Act, 1972.

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petition