CENTRAL BANK OF LNDIA versus M. SETHUMADHAVAN & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 912 · Decided: 29-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 912 
CENTRAL BANK OF lNDIA 
v. 
M. SETHUMADHAVAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1975 of2010) 
MARCH 29, 2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) 
Service Law: 
C 
Gratuity - Issue as regards fixation of cut-off date for payment 
of gratuity - Justification of - Held: Fixing of cut-off date is a well 
accepted principle - On facts, retired employees before this Court 
have been fighting for around quarter of a century and since they 
are only few retired employees, fit case to invoke jurisdiction ul 
D 
Art.142 - Appellants-Banks to pay rupees two /akhs in full and 
final settlement of all their claims including the expenses incurred 
for litigation - Constitution of India - Art. 142. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The fixing of cut-off date has been a well 
accepted principle. However, having regard to the fact that the 
retired employees before this Court have been fighting for around 
quarter of a century and taking note of the fact that they arc only 
a few in number, this is a fit case to invoke jurisdiction under 
Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The appellants Banks 
are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two 
Lakhs) in full and final settlement of all their claims including the 
expenses which they have incurred for litigation for more than· 
two decades. [Paras 8, 9) (915-G; 916-B-C] 
1.2 As far as the civil appeals arising out of Writ Appeal 
Nos.1758-1785 of 2003 & other connected matters are concerned, 
the benefit, shall be limited to those persons, who were in the 
party-array before the High Court and whose names had already 
been furnished to the High Court when the writ petition(s) was/ 
were considered by the High Court, and a certificate from the 
High Court would be obtained for that purpose. [Para 10) [916-
D-E) 
912 
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. M. SETHUMADHAVAN & ORS. 
913 
D. S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 30S : 
(19831 2 SCR 16S: State Government Pensioners': 
Association and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1986) 
3 SCC SOl; State of A.P. v. A.P.Pensioners 'Association 
(200S) 13 SCC 161 : [200S] S Suppl. SCR 223; State 
of Bihar v. Bihar Petitioners' Sama} (2006) S SCC 6S; 
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. 
(200S) 6 sec 7S4 : 12oos1 2 Suppl. SCR S49; 
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. N. 
Subbarayudu & Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 702 : [2008) S 
SCR S22 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(1'!831 2 SCR 16S 
referred to 
Para4 
(200SI S Suppl. SCR 223 
referred to 
Paras 
(1986) 3 sec so1 
referred to 
Paras 
(2006) s sec 6S 
referred to 
Paras 
(200S] 2 Suppl. SCR S49 
referred to 
Para 8 
(20081 S SCR S22 
referred to 
Paras 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1975 
of2010. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2005 of the High Court 
of Kerala at Ernakulam in 0. P. No. 23514 of I 998 
WITH 
C. A. No. 8810 of2012 
C. A. Nos. 4616, 4617-44, 4645, 4646-75 and 4676 of2017. 
Jaideep Gupta, Dhruv Mehta, A. B. Dial, Sr. Ad vs., Dinesh Mathur, 
Ms. Priyanka Bharti, Ms. Anindita Mitra, K. Rajeev, Rameshwar Prasad 
Goyal, Rajesh Kumar, Gaurav Kumar Singh, Anant Gautam (For Mis 
Mitter & Mitter Co.), Kunal Anand, Raj iv Nanda, Ram Lal Roy, Ramesh 
N. Keswani, Ms. Malini Poduval, Ms. Babita Sant, Jagat Arora, Rajat 
Arora, Anuvrat Sharma, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, 
Ms. Dharani Subramanian, R. S. Hegde, Ms. Farhat Jahan Rehmani, 
Chandra Prakash, R!!ieev Singh, M. K. S. Menon, Ms. Shreya Menon, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
914 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Ms. Usha Nandini V., Jogy Scaria, Yashraj Singh Deora, Advs. for the 
appearing parties. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. Leave is granted in SLP(C) No. 28329 of 2012, 
SLP(C) No. 30323-30350 of2012, SLP(C) No. 6468 of2014, SLP(C) 
No. 28332-28362 of2012 and SLP(C) No. 26473 of2012. 
2. The appellants, which are the Nationalised Banks and also the 
Association of Banks, are aggrieved since some of the High Courts 
have declined to uphold the Regulations provided by them, to be precise, 
Proviso 2 to Regulation 46, Clause 2. The said Regulation reads as 
follows:-
"./6(2) The amount of Graluily payable to an officer shall be 
one monlh :i· pay for every completed year of service, subject 
lo a maximum of 15 months pay. 
Provided thal where a11 officer has completed more than 30 
years of service, he shall be eligible by way of Gra1uity for 
a11 additional amount at the ra/e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.