B.M. Rajashekara Murthy and Others vs State of Karnataka, Department of Co-operation and Karnataka State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Asking for a mandamus against the Karnataka State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., (for short ''the Bank''), Bangalore-18, to calculate and pay the difference of gratuity amount as per Sub-Rule(4) of Rule 18 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (for short ''the Rules''), these writ petitions have been filed.

Petitioners were the employees of the Bank and have retired from service of the Bank, having attained the age of superannuation. The Bank has paid the gratuity to the petitioners as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Claiming payment of gratuity in terms of the Regulation 16 of the Service Conditions of the Employees of the Bank and Sub Rule (4). of Rule 18 of the Rules, these writ petitions have been field.

Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the writ petition record.

Basic facts of the case stated in the writ petitions are not in dispute. W.P. Nos. 20968-976/2011 filed by certain other employees of the Bank were allowed on 16.08.2011 vide order as at Annexure-E and the Bank was directed to calculate and pay the difference of gratuity amount in terms of the Rule 18(4) of the Rules r/w Rule 16 of the Subsidiary Rules of the Bank along with such interest as can be payable in terms of the Notification issued by the State Government from time to time.

W.A. Nos. 17158-17166/2011 filed by the Bank were dismissed by a judgment dated 06.06.2012, as at Annexure-F. SLP Nos. 34218-34226/2012 filed by the Bank were rejected on 26.11.2012. In the judgment, as at Annexure-F, it has been held as follows:

Sub-Section (5) of Section 4 of the Gratuity Act clearly gives a right to the contesting respondents to claim for better terms of gratuity, if they are entitled to pursuant to art award by an agreement or contract with the employer. The sub-section is governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. The Rules are adopted by the appellant/bank. On perusal of the service conditions of the employees, it is clear to us that the employees of the appellant/bank are entitled to claim gratuity under Sub-Rule(4) of Rule 18 of the Rules. When the service conditions of the employees of the appellant/bank are governed by the aforesaid, provision, the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot rely upon Section 14 of the Gratuity Act in view of the clear provisions of Sub-Section (5) of Section 4 of the Act.

The facts in the instant cases are identical and the same question, which was considered by this Court in the order as at Annexure-E and the judgment as at Annexure-F has arisen for consideration. I am bound by the Order and the Judgment as at Annexures-E and F and the Bank cannot be permitted to take a different stand in these cases, in as much as, the Bank has given effect to the mandamus issued in the order as at Annexure-E, which was affirmed as per the judgment as at Annexure-F.

Since, the point involved in these cases is identical to the point decided in the order as at Annexure-E and upheld in the judgment as at Annexure-F and the SLPs. filed by the Bank having been rejected by the Apex Court, the stand taken by the respondent in its counter is patently irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory and cannot be accepted.

The order as at Annexure-E having been confirmed by the judgment as at Annexure-F is certainly binding on me, the rationale of the Rule being consistency, certainty and predictability in the administration of the justice. I do not find any substantial question of law having been raised by the Bank in the counter filed by it, even to make a reference to the Division Bench for consideration and decision.

However, there is delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in filing these writ petitions. The order as at Annexure-E having been passed on 16.08.2011 and even writ appeals filed by the Bank having been dismissed on 06.06.2012, these writ petitions have beer; filed on 03.02.2014. The delay is attributable to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to payment of interest.

In the result, the writ petitions are allowed in part. The respondent - Bank shall calculate and pay the petitioners, difference of gratuity amount in terms of the Sub-rule (4) of Rule 18 of the Rules. Time for compliance is three months.

No costs.