KALYAN MAL CHOUDHARY Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an ex-permanent employee of the Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank, Limited, Jaipur (for short 'the Bank') has by way of this writ petition raised the substantial questions of law for consideration of this Court with reference to interpretation of Rule-7 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules') which are as follows :

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner served the respondent-Bank for a period of 29 years and retired from services of the respondent-Bank as Deputy Manager w.e.f. 31.7.1.992. The respondent-Bank is a Co-operative Bank of the State of Rajasthan and is governed by the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 as well as the Co-operative Society Rules, 1966 & on the basis of which the respondent-Bank had issued Ex.R/2, which is a bipartite settlement between the Bank & its employees and Annexure-2 (dated 20.11.1992), pertains to the payment of gratuity as admissible to the retired employees of the Bank. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended at the bar that the petitioner was entitled to the payment of gratuity as admissible to him on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.7.1992 in view of his having rendered 29 years of qualifying service to the Bank.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended at the bar that the last drawn salary of the petitioner was Rs. 8,416.93, which includes the basis pay @ Rs. 2,030.00 p.m. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 40,600.00 by multiplying basic pay with 20 months' of salary instead' of paying the gratuity @ one month's substantive salary last substantive salary last drawn for each year of completed service subject to the maximum ceiling limit of 20 months of salary, to which an employee is entitled to receive on attaining the age of superannuation, which includes all allowances etc. as admissible to the petitioner as on the date of his retirement, but as a result of the misinterpretation of the Rule by the Bank, the petitioner was deprived of the benefit of gratuity in accordance with the aforesaid Rule.