Telangana High Court
WP/19822/2004 of G.Satyanarayana Vs The District Cooperative Central Bank on 28 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 19822 of 2004 Between: G.Satyanarayana S/o.Veeraiah DCCB, Hanamkonda Branch Warangal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 19822 of 2004
Between:
G.Satyanarayana S/o.Veeraiah DCCB, Hanamkonda Branch Warangal District, R/o.Warangal.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The District Cooperative Central Bank Limited rep. by its General Manager,Warangal.
2 The General Manager, Warangal District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Hanamkonda, Warangal.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents in with holding the 50% of the gratuity andother retirement benefits such as leave salary including the arrears due to thepetitioner from the respondents towards the with held increments pursuant to theorders of teh Arbitrator in ARC 15/99 dated 9.8.2001 and the orders of the secondrespondent dated 30-11-2001 as totally illegal and contrary to law laid down by theHon'ble Supreme Court of India in 1999 3 SCC P.666 and consequently direct therespondents to release the entire retirement benefits due to the petitioner includingarrears with interest @ 18% per annum and compensation for the illegal action of therespondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.LAKSHMA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: MR.P.NAGESWAR SREE
The Court at the stage of admission, made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
For withholding the 50% of the gratuity and other retirement benefitssuch as leave salary including the arrears due to the petitioner fromthe respondents pursuant to the orders of the Arbitrator in ARCNO.15 of 1999 dated 9.8.2001 and the orders of the 2[nd] respondentdated 30.11.2001, the present writ petition is filed.
The petitioner worked in the respondent-Bank and retired fromservice on 31.7.2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that afterretirement, 50% of the gratuity and the other retirement benefits havenot been paid to him.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehementlycontended that withholding 50% of the gratuity and other retirementbenefits is contrary to the service Rules governing the serviceconditions of the petitioner and therefore prays to allow the writpetition.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for therespondent-Bank contended that since a charge memo has beenissued for certain irregularities committed by the petitioner, therespondents have rightly withheld the amounts and there are nogrounds to allow the writ petition.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled for 50% of the gratuityamount and also other retirement benefits. The remaining 50% of thegratuity amount was already been released to the petitioner. As perthe service Rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner,there is no Rule for withholding of gratuity on the ground thatdisciplinary enquiry is pending. Therefore, the respondents aredirected to pay the amount in the absence of any Rules governingthe service conditions to the petitioner. So the ground on which therespondents withheld the amounts is not sustainable under law inview of the fact that there is no specific Rule for initiating departmentalenquiry against the petitioner.
Therefore, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents torelease the benefit of 50% of gratuity amount and other retirementbenefits to the petitioner, within a period of three months from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
_____________
28.12.2004
bsv
To
1. The District Cooperative Central Bank Limited rep. by itsGeneral Manager, Warangal.General Manager, Warangal.
2 The General Manager, Warangal District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Hanamkonda, Warangal.
3. 2 CD copies