CENTRAL BANK OF LNDIAversusM. SETHUMADHAVAN & ORS.

                             [2017] 2 S.C.R. 912



A                      CENTRAL BANK OF lNDIA

                                       v.

                     M. SETHUMADHAVAN & ORS.

                       (Civil Appeal No. 1975 of2010)
B
                              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.
          Disposing of the appeals, the Court
          HELD: 1.1 The fixing of cut-off date has been a well
E   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
F
    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,
G   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-
H   D-E)
                                  912
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. M. SETHUMADHAVAN & ORS.                           913


      D. S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 30S :                     A
      (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;
                                                                            B
      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                                 c
(1'!831 2 SCR 16S                referred to              Para4
(200SI S Suppl. SCR 223          referred to              Paras
(1986) 3 sec so1                 referred to              Paras
                                                                            D
(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.                                                                     E
      From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2005 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in 0. P. No. 23514 of I998
                                WITH
      C. A. No. 8810 of2012                                                 F

      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
                                                                            G
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,
                                                                            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.
            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)
B     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
c     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.

D              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 of one half of a monlh spay
             for each completed year of service beyond 30 years.
               Provided further that pay for the purpose of Gratuity for an
             officer who ceased to be in service during the period I. 7.1993 to
E
             31.10.1994 shall be with regard to scale of pay as specified in
             sub-regulation (I) of Regulation 4."
             3. The dispute is on the question as to whether the appellants are
      justified in fixation of cut-off date for the payment of gratuity. The pay
      had been revised with effect from 01.07.1993. However, in the matter
F
      of gratuity, it is stipulated that the benefit ofrevised pay for the purpose
      of calculation of gratuity will be available only in the case of those retired
      after 31. I 0.1994. In other words, in the case of those who retired prior
      to 31.10.1994, the calculation of gratuity will be on the bll6is of the pre-
      revised pay. It is the case of the appellants, since they are offering
G     better terms, in the sense that gratuity is calculated at the rate of one
      month's pay as against 15 days' pay under the Payment of Gratuity Act,
      1972, they are also justified in fixing the cut-off date.
             4. Umpteen number of judgments have been cited before us for
      the justification and rationale behind fixation of a cut-off date. The
H
 CENTRAL BANK OF !NOIA v. M. SETHUMADHAVAN & ORS.                               915
                   [KURIAN, J.]

 celebrated Constitution Bench Judgment in D. S. Nakara Vs. Union of             A
 India, reported in (1983) I SCC 305 has been cited to finally contend
·that in any case, the appellants are not bound to pay the arrears even if
 the calculation goes in favour of the respondents.
       5. We find that during the pendency of the matters before this
Court, a Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala, having regard to the            B
divergent views taken by Division Benches of the said Court, has
considered this issue, leading to the Judgment dated 03.03.2016 in O.P.
No. 20427of1997 (F) along with O.P. No. 3489of1997 and it has been
held that fixation of cut-off date for extending the benefit of gratuity
from a different date as compared to revision of pay-scale can neither
be said to be arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of Articles 14 and 16
                                                                                 c
of the Constitution oflndia. The Full Bench has also placed reliance on
the decisions of this Court in State Government Pensioners 'Association
and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in ( 1986) 3 SCC 50 I,
State of A.P. Vs. A.P.Pensioners' Association, reported in (2005) 13
SCC 16 I and State of Bihar Vs. Bihar Petitioners' Sama}, reported in            D
(2006) 5 sec 65.
        6. We also find that the High Court of Gujarat and Madras also
 have taken a similar view. However, the High Court of Karnataka has
 taken a different view in the Judgment dated 25.05.2012 in Writ Appeal
 Nos.1758-1785 of2003 (S-RES) & other connected matters. The High                E
 Court, in the said Judgment, has taken the view that the classification
 adopted by the appellants will not stand the test of Artie le 14 and hence,
 a direction has been issued for disbursing the benefits with 6% interest
 with effect from 23.06.1995.
        7. Having heard Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Mr. Dhruv Mehta and Mr.               F
 Adarsh Dial, learned senior counsel and other learned counsel on behalf
 of the appellants as well as Mr. M.K.S. Menon, learned senior counsel
 and other learned counsel appearing for the retired employees in other
 cases, we are of the view that having regard to the long drawn litigation
 for almost a quarter of century, the issue should be given a quietus,
 settling the question of law but protecting the interest of the litigants in    G
 these cases.
        8. Fixing of cut-off date has been a well accepted principle and
 we do not find that the same needs to be suppo1ted by any Judgment
 since it has been the consistent view taken by this Court. In State of
                                                                                 H
916.                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] 2 S.C.R.


A      Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 754,
       which was subsequently followed in Government of Andhra Pradesh
       & Ors. Vs. N. Subbarayudu & Ors.. reported in (2008) 14 SCC 702,
       this Court has referred to all the judgments in that regard. In the peculiar
       facts of this case, having regard to the background of the regularisation
       making process, we are of the view that the cut-off date fixed by the
B
       appellants in the regularisation was not arbitrary, unjust or unfair.
              9. 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 are only a few in number, we are of the
       view that this is a fit case to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of
c      the Constitution oflndia. We, therefore, direct that the appellants Banks
       shall 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. The amount, as
       above, shall be paid within eight weeks from today.
D             10. We make it clear that as far as the civil appeals arising out of
       Writ Appeal Nos. 1758-1785 of2003 (S-RES) & other connected matters
       are concerned, the benefit, as above, 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)
 E     was/were considered by the High Court, and a certificate from the High
       Court shall be obtained for that purpose.
             11. With the above observations and directions, these appeals are
       disposed of.

 F
       Nidhi Jain                                                . Appeals disposed of.