Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Prathama U P Gramin Bank vs Union Of India And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|27 July, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 42
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15477 of 2021 Petitioner :- Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Vaish Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Neeru Devi
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Neelu Devi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and perused the record.
Present petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondent no. 2 to accept the Bank Guarantee (BG) in lieu of earnest money to be deposited in all 32 orders/notices under the provisions of Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in the light of identical judgement and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3822 of 2020 in the matter of Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank vs. Neeraj Kumar Mathur.
Placing reliance on the order of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 17.2.2020 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3822 of 2020 (Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank vs. Neera Kumar Mathur and others), it is submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court has directed for acceptance of bank guarantee by the appellate authority and a direction has been issued to dispose of the appeal in the time bound manner. The said order is quoted as under:
"Issue notice.
Mr. C.K. Sasi, appearing on caveat accepts notice.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the total amount required to be deposited by the petitioner for filing appeals against the orders of the Controlling Authority would be about ten crores rupees.
After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, we direct that the petitioner shall secure the amount directed to be deposited by the Controlling Authority by furnishing a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Appellate Authority which shall be kept renewed until further orders.
Subject to furnishing of bank guarantee, as directed within two weeks' from date, the appeal shall be heard and decided by the Appellate Authority expeditiously preferably within three months from date.
It is clarified that though the amount of deposit involved in this particular case is two lakhs odd, bank guarantee shall be furnished for ten crores and odd being the total amount in respect of all the employees concerned.
The special leave petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any."
It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid order, an application was moved before the respondent no. 2 for accepting the bank guarantee in respect of 32 employees, total amounting to Rs. 68,00,388/- only, so that the appeal may be filed and entertained.
From perusal of the aforesaid application, said prayer made through letter dated 11.5.2021 appears to have been rejected by the communication dated 24.5.2021 that unless there is some order of the High Court or the Supreme Court, the bank guarantee cannot be accepted.
Perusal of the above quoted order of Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly indicates that the Bank is directed that the bank guarantee in respect of all the employees concerned shall be furnished. In the present case also, the petitioner- bank has tendered bank guarantee in respect of 32 employees, total amounting to Rs. 68,00388. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, prima facie, the request made by the Bank before the appellate authority is covered by the above quoted order of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 17.2.2020.
In such view of the matter, present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to re- consider the request of the petitioner-bank for acceptance of the bank guarantee in the light of the above quoted order of Hon'ble Apex Court and once the appeal is filed, the same shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible, as already directed by Hon'ble Apex Court.
There is yet another reason to pass order as the authority of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is under challenge. Therefore, prima facie, it would be appropriate that bank guarantee is accepted by the respondent no. 2.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Abhishek
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Prathama U P Gramin Bank vs Union Of India And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
27 July, 2021
Judges
  • Vivek Kumar Birla
Advocates
  • Dharmendra Vaish