- (1.) We have heard Sri Devendra Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Satyam Singh, the holding brief of Sri Shiv Nath Singh, the learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3.
(2.) The petitioner no. 1 retired on 30.06.2008 upon reaching the age of superannuation as Deputy General Manager in District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Ghazipur. The petitioner no. 2 retired on 31st January, 2009 upon reaching the age of superannuation as Deputy General Manager from District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Pilibhit. The petitioner no. 1 received an amount of Rs.4,48,239/- towards gratuity on 15th September, 2009. The petitioner no. 2 received a sum of Rs.4,98,986/- towards gratuity on 29th July, 2009. Both the petitioners filed separate representations with regard to the calculation of gratuity, which was considered and the difference of amount was paid to petitioner no. 1 vide cheque dated 18.05.2010 and the petitioner no. 2 was paid vide cheque dated 5th May, 2010.
(3.) The petitioners contend that the calculation of gratuity by the respondents was wrongly calculated, which was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and further interest, as provided under Section 7 (3-A) of the Gratuity Act, has also not been paid on the initial amount or on the revised amount and therefore, a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to pay the difference of gratuity amount as per calculation provided under Section 4 (2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act as well as interest as per Section 7 (3)-A of the said Act.;