Full Judgement
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Paschim Banga Gramin Bank & Ors vs Chinmay Majumdar & Ors on 12 January, 2021
12.01.2021
25
ns Ct.04
F.M.A. 657 of 2020
Paschim Banga Gramin Bank & Ors.
Vs.
Chinmay Majumdar & Ors.
Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya,
Ms. Surasri Baidya
.... For appellants.
Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy,
Mr. Indranath Mitra,
Mr. Subhankar Das
.... For respondents.
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appears on
behalf of appellants and submits, regulation 72 in Paschim
Banga Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service
Regulations, 2010 has three provisos under sub-regulation
(2). The third proviso is for additional inclusion of
dearness, special and officiating allowances payable during
12 months preceding death, disability, retirement,
resignation or termination of service, as the case may be,
for calculation of gratuity in respect of employee.
Respondents are officers.
He relies on judgment of Supreme Court in
Khoday Distilleries Limited - vs - Sri Mahadeshwara
Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal reported
in (2019) 4 SCC 376, paragraphs 18 to 24, to submit there
is no merger caused by order dated 7th May, 2019 passed 2
by Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to
Appeal (C) no(s).11113 - 11115/2019 (Madhyanchal
Gramin Bank & anr. Etc. - vs - All India Gramin Bank
Pensioners Organisation Unit, Rewa Etc.). As such,
decision of the High Court, not interfered with on dismissal
of the Special Leave Petitions, does not cause the Madhya
Pradesh High Court's judgment as have been confirmed by
the Supreme Court and be a binding precedent on this
Court. He then relies on judgment dated 6th January,
2020 of a learned single Judge of Bombay High Court,
Nagpur Bench in, inter alia, Writ Petition no.8272 of
2018 (Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank - vs - The
Appellate Authority and Anr.), paragraph 18. He also
relies on Maniruddin - vs - Chairman of Dacca reported
in 40 CWN 17 to submit, statutory bodies have no power to
do anything unless power to do so is conferred by statute.
Here the proviso is clear in the context of its application to
employees only.
Mr. Saha Roy, learned advocate appears on
behalf of respondents and refers to Vidarbha Konkan
Gramin Bank (supra) and submits, distinction in second
and third provisos to regulation 72(3), in light of definitions
under regulation 2, was not brought to notice of High
Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Calcutta when it was held
that calculation of gratuity in the case of officers under
said regulations ought to be based on inclusion of dearness
allowance in expression, pay.
3
Mr. Saha Roy will be further heard on
adjourned date. List on 15th January, 2021.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)
(Subra Ghosh, J.)
