Patna High Court - Orders
The Chairman & M.D.,Uco Bank & vs Shambhu Sharan Singh on 11 March, 2011
Bench: Chief Justice, Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.252 of 2011
IN
CWJC No. 3503 of 2010
With
I.A.No.1332 of 2011
===================================================
1. The Chairman & M.D.,U Co Bank Head Office at 10, Brabourne
Road, Kolkata-1
2. The General Manager-Personnel, Administration, U Co Bank,
Personal Administration Department null Salt Lake, Kolkata.
3. The Chief Officer (Pension) UCo Bank, Head Office-2, 3-4 DD
Block Sector-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064
4. The Assistant General Manager UCo Bank, Head Office-2, 3-4, DD
Block, Sector-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064.
5. The Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Mauryalok Complex,
4th Floor, Patna.,
6. The Branch Manager, UCo Bank, Ganga Gopal Market Complex
Nagar Palika Chowk, Chapra
All the aforesaid Officers of the UCo Bank in their official capacity
are being represented through Panna Lal Mitra, S6 late Radhapada
Mitra, Resident of Flat No. 302, Jai Kunj Apartment, Kidwaipuri,
Patna-1 as the constituted Attorney of the Bank
-Respondents - Appellants.
Versus
Shambhu Sharan Singh, S6 late Jagdish Narain Singh, resident of Mo:-
V.I.P. Lane, Bhagwan Bazar, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, District-Saran
- Respondent
=====================================================
2
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. S.D.Sanjay, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
4 11.03.2011This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 11th October 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 3503 of 2010.
The respondent-writ petitioner was the employee of the appellant-UCo Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank"). On reaching the age of superannuation he retired from service in the year 2008. The amount of gratuity payable to him was withheld by the Bank on the ground that a criminal prosecution was pending against him.
Challenge to the action of the Bank in the writ petition has succeeded. The learned Single Judge has directed the Bank to pay the amount of gratuity to the writ petitioner.
It is not in dispute that the service of the writ petitioner was not terminated on disciplinary grounds. On his retirement he was entitled to receive the amount of gratuity. 3 The action of the Bank in withholding the amount of gratuity was clearly in violation of Section 4 read with Section 14 of the of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The action has rightly been set aside by the learned Single Judge. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine.
Interlocutory Application No. 1332 of 2011 stands disposed of.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) Bibhash