Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ₹50K Cost On Bank For 17 Years Of Silence On Retired Employee's Plea Seeking Release Of Gratuity

The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld cost of Rs.50,000 imposed on Punjab & Sind Bank over failure to file reply for 17 years in a plea filed by a retired employee seeking release of gratuity.

The bank had moved an appeal against the order of a single judge who had expressed "shock" to find that the plea was pending since 2005 because the bank failed to file reply for 17 years. Consequently, a cost of Rs.50,000 was imposed on the Bank for delaying the plea by the single judge. 

A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta said, "The contentions which learned counsel have raised before this Court were not taken up by him before learned Single Judge as the Bank did not even file any reply before it. For 17 years, the writ petition remained pending and therefore, learned Single Judge has proceeded to impose a cost of Rs.50,000/- to be recovered from the concerned officer. We do not find any reason to interfere with the reasoned order..."

 A plea before single judge was filed by an employee of the Punjab & Sind Bank who despite being acquitted in the criminal case was denied of gratuity because he was compulsorily retired.

The single judge  while directing to release the petitioner's gratuity within four weeks from date of order with interest at 10% per annum, observed that, "It is a shocking case wherein the respondents did not file the reply for 17 long years."

Adding that the accrued interest to be paid to the petitioner shall be recovered from the concerned officer responsible for delaying the case at the relevant time who failed in his duty to file the written statement within reasonable time, the judge imposed a cost of Rs.50,000 on the bank.

Challenging the above order an LPA was filed by the bank.

After examining the submissions and analysing Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Court noted that the Gratuity in terms of Regulation 46 has to be paid to every officer who is eligible for gratuity on retirement, death, disablement, resignation and termination of service in any other way except by way of punishment, after completion of 10 years of service.

Thus, a person who is compulsorily retired, even by way of punishment, would fall within the ambit of Regulation 46(1)(a) of of the Punjab & Sind Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, opined the division bench.

The Court further explained that the retirements may be of different nature. However, a person, who is compulsorily retired either in ordinary course or by way of punishment, would be entitled to receive pension and it would be, therefore, a case of retirement alone. 

Consequently, the Court upheld the order passed by the single bench.

Mr. I.P. Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

Title: Punjab & Sind Bank and another v. Surinder Kumar Verma

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 70

Click here to read/download the order