STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in these writ petitions is challenging Ext.P8 appellate orders issued by the 2nd respondent in these cases, by which the appeals filed by the petitioner against the proceedings of the 1st respondent stood dismissed.

(2.) The short facts, necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions, as culled out from W.P.(C) No.35210 of 2019, are as under;

(3.) However, it appears that upon the superannuation of the 3rd respondent as peon on 30/9/2014, the 3rd respondent took a stand that he was eligible for the gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') for the entire period when he was in service with the petitioner Bank - the period from 24/1/1980 to 31/8/2010 and the period when he worked as peon pursuant to Ext.P2. The petitioner Bank on the contrary took the stand that whatever gratuity payable for the initial innings, was already paid pursuant to Ext.P3 and as regards the subsequent innings when the 3rd respondent worked as the peon, he is not entitled for any gratuity since the total period he worked as peon was below the minimum eligible period required for the benefits under the said statute.