- (1.) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay amount of gratuity to the petitioner at a higher rate and may be directed to pay additional amount after deducting Rs. 36,150/- already paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the decision taken by the respondents dated 11-10-2002, by which the respondents have conveyed that the petitioner is not entitled to receive the amount of gratuity.
(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk and he was ultimately promoted as Branch Manager. While he was in service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and ultimately he was removed from service by order dated 14-3-1990. The petitioner thereafter started taking proceedings for recovering the amount of gratuity. In this behalf the petitioner preferred an application before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. It seems that during the pendency of the said application, the respondent-Bank paid an amount of Rs. 36,150/- to the petitioner towards gratuity. However, the Controlling Authority ultimately by its order dated 30-12-1992 came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to Rs. 88,830/- towards gratuity and after deducting the amount already paid by the respondents to the petitioner, it was ordered that the balance amount of Rs. 52,680/- should be paid to the petitioner. The said order of the Controlling Authority was challenged by the respondent-Bank by preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The said appeal was dismissed, against which the respondent-Bank preferred a writ petition before the Mumbai High Court. The Mumbai High Court vide its order dated 26-4-1995 set aside the order of the Controlling Authority on the ground that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act are not applicable. It was also held by the Mumbai High Court that the respondent-Bank should not recover the amount already paid to the petitioner towards gratuity and also made incidental observations to the effect that it will be open to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings before appropriate Court or authority in case he is of the view that he is entitled to claim higher rate of gratuity. However, ultimately, the respondent-Bank (sic) to a decision on 11-10-2002 that the petitioner is not entitled to receive the amount of gratuity. The petitioner has thereafter filed this writ petition on the ground that the amount of gratuity paid to him is not just and proper and amount should be paid at a higher rate.
(3.) The writ petition is opposed by the respondent-Bank by filing reply, which is finding place at page No. 50 in the compilation. It is the say of the respondent-Bank that the petitioner is not entitled to any amount of gratuity in view of the fact that he was removed from service in view of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and therefore, in view of the provisions of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (for brevity, 'the Regulations of 1979') no amount of gratuity is payable to the petitioner. On this and such other grounds, the writ petition has been resisted by the respondent-Bank.;