JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that by an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may be directed to pay the entire gratuity and provident fund amount as well as sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation for depriving the petitioner for use of the amount. The petitioner further sought a direction that the petitioner may be paid interest at rare of 18 per cent on the amount from the date this amount became due to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was an employee of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (here in after referred as 'the Bank') till he was discharged from the service after disciplinary proceedings by order dated 6th May, 1980. The petitioner challenged this order of discharge from service by filing writ petition but that writ petition was dismissed on 15th April, 1984. 3. Soon after discharge from service the petitioner made an application to the Managing Director on 24th December, 1980 praying that provident fund and gratuity due may be paid to him at earliest, vide Annexure-1. This application was replied by the Bank by communication dated 24th September, 1982 and the petitioner was asked to forward an application addressed to the trustees of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur to enable them to refund the provident fund balance to him. Thereafter another communication was received by the petitioner from the Bank on 14th May, 1983 whereby the petitioner was informed through his Advocate that the matter has been taken up by the Branch and also with the Controller in regard to refund of the P.F. balance to him. 4. The petitioner also made an application for payment of provident fund on 3rd June, and again on 1st July, 1982 and 10th September, 1982 before he was served with the communication dated 24th September, 1982. Thereafter on 21st February, 1983, 20th April, 1983 the petitioner further submitted applications for refund of provident fund and finally he sent a notice through Advocate on 11th May, 1983 which was replied by the respondent Bank on 14th May, 1983 mentioned above. Thereafter nothing transpired and the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying the aforesaid relief that a mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to make the payment of gratuity and provident fund to him. 5. Thereafter nothing transpired and the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying the aforesaid relief that a mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to make the payment of gratuity and provident fund to him. 5. That the service conditions of the employee of the Bank are governed by the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Officers Service) Regulations, 1979) (here in after referred as 'the Regulations of 1979') framed under Section 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959. Regulation 48 of Regulations 1979 deals with Provident Fund and Regulation 48 deals with the gratuity. Regulations 48 and 49 are reproduced here with: "48. (1) Unless otherwise directed by the competent authority and subject to the provisions of the rules of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Employees Provident Fund every officer shall become a member of the fund, if he is not already a member and shall subscribe and agree to be bound by the rules of the fund. (2) The Bank shall contribute to the Provident Fund in accordance with the rules governing the Provident Fund from time to time, provided that the amount contributed by it shall be not more than 8⅓% of the pay of the officer. 49. (1) An Officer shall be eligible for gratuity on: (a) retirement ; (b) death ; (c) disablement rendering him unfit for further service as certified by medical officer approved by the Bank, or (d) resignation after completion of ten years of continuous service. (2) The amount of gratuity payable to an officer shall be one month's pay for every completed year or service subject to maximum of 15 months pay. Provided that where an officer has completed more than 30 years he shall be eligible by way of guatuity for an additional amount at rate of one half of a month's pay for each completed year of service beyond 30 years." 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that not with standing his discharge from service the petitioner has not been paid his provident fund and gratuity therefore a direction should be issued to the respondent Bank to make payment of gratuity and provident fund with interest and compensation within short possible time. 7. The writ petition has been opposed by Mr. M.M. Vyas and he has raised several grounds. 7. The writ petition has been opposed by Mr. M.M. Vyas and he has raised several grounds. But it is unfortunate that the Bank being benevolent employer has not paid the amount due to his employee specially when an incumbent has been discharged from service; it was expected of the Bank to have cleared the amount of provident fund and gratuity expeditiously. On the contrary they have taken wholly untenable and uncalled for objection which reserves to be rejected out of hand. 8. One of the objection raised in the reply by the respondent Bank that the application was not forwarded through proper channel. It is also submitted that the claim of the provident fund will be made subject to writ petition (which has been disposed of). Both the grounds are frivolous. Not sending the papers through proper channel or the fact of the pendency of writ petition are no grounds for with holding the payment of the provident fund and gratuity. 9. Regulation 17 of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Employees Provident Fund Regulations 1969 deals with the payment of amount standing to the credit of member. Regulation 17(1) in so far as it relates to present purpose reads as under: "17(1) Subject to Sub-regulation (2) the sums standing to the credit of a member, after adjusting any withdrawals made under Regulations 14, 15, & 15A shall become payable when he ceases to be a member; Provided that where a number resigns, retires or his service in the Bank is terminated otherwise than by death, or on account of retrenchment, illness or physical disability or for reasons beyond his control before completion of permanent service of 5 years he shall be entitled to be paid only the amount of his own subscriptions to the Fund together with interest thereon and not to any share of the contributions made by the Bank to his account in the fund or the interest thereon. Provided further that where a member resigns retires or his service in the Bank is terminated otherwise than by death, or on account of retrenchment, illness or physical disability or for reasons beyond his control after completion of permanent service of 5 years or more but less than 10 years, he shall be entitled to receive his own contribution to the Fund together with interest in respect thereof, and to the Bank's contribution at rate of 10% of such contribution with interest for such completed year of permanent service; Provided further that a member of leave preparatory to retirement may at his option withdraw from the sums standing to his credit in the Fund an amount not exceeding his subscriptions and the interest thereon, but if the member does not eventually retire, the full amount withdrawn must be refunded as a condition of continued employment." 10. Regulation 17(1) requires that as soon as the employee ceased to be a member of the service he is entitled for the provident fund. It is very curious when Bank says in its reply that he is no longer employee of the Bank, yet they are with holding the payment of the provident fund. Mr. Vyas emphasised that since the writ petition was pending therefore we did not make the payment of the amount to the petitioner. 11. Mr. Vyas further submits that since the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Single Judge dismissing his writ petition therefore payment could not be made to the petitioner. I suggested to Mr. Vyas that the provident fund and gratuity amount should be released to the petitioner on his furnishing the undertaking if he succeeds in the special appeal then he will deposit the amount back. On 22nd July, 1985 the time was granted to Mr. Vyas to seek instructions from the Bank. But on the next date it was informed that the suggestion was not acceptable to the respondent. In the reply which was filed by the Bank on 13th March, 1983 no objection regarding gratuity was taken. Then again a reply was filed by Mr. Vyas and in this reply they insisted that a proper application should be made to the trustee. In the reply which was filed by the Bank on 13th March, 1983 no objection regarding gratuity was taken. Then again a reply was filed by Mr. Vyas and in this reply they insisted that a proper application should be made to the trustee. It was further submitted that according to regulation 17 of Regulation 1969 incumbent is entitled to the amount of gratuity provided he is ceased to be member of the Bank but the petitioner has filed the writ petition therefore he cannot be paid this amount. It was further contended that the members of the trustee of the provident fund should be impleaded as party. These objections of Mr. Vyas are also nothing new and I have already dealt with them above Only objection regarding impleading trustee of the provident fund is concerned the Chairman of the trustee of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur has already been impleaded as party in this writ petition. It is not necessary to make all the trustees parties to the present writ petition. This is very callous and uncalled for objection of the respondent Bank. The Bank some how wants to delay the payment of the gratuity and provident fund, instead of coming forward that the amount of gratuity and provident fund will be paid within the time specified, on the contrary objections have been raised to some how delay the payment of provident fund and gratuity. Such objections hardly behoves the Bank. 12. Again an additional reply was filed by the respondent Bank on 16th August, 1985 and another strange argument was raised that the petitioner has joined two separate claim in this writ petition, one regarding provident fund and another regarding gratuity. Objection has been raised that such cannot be done. This objection is over ruled and it was least expected that such objections shall come from the Bank. These are not civil proceeding for which separate suit has to be filed for separate cause of action. Both causes, namely, provident fund and gratuity are terminal benefits therefore it is not necessary for the petitioner to file two suits and two different writ petitions for their claim. 13. In the additional reply for the first time the Bank has come to oppose the payment of gratuity. Both causes, namely, provident fund and gratuity are terminal benefits therefore it is not necessary for the petitioner to file two suits and two different writ petitions for their claim. 13. In the additional reply for the first time the Bank has come to oppose the payment of gratuity. In this reply it has been submitted that no payment of gratuity is payable unless he ceased to be employee of the Bank and because of pendency of writ petition and special appeal he does not cease to be employee of the Bank. It has further been submitted that the payment of gratuity is governed by the Regulations framed by the Bank known as Payment of Gratuity to Employees Regulations, 1970 framed under Section 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959. It has been contended that the trustee has not been made party, nor any demand of justice notice regarding payment of gratuity has been made. It may be staled at the out set that soon after the retirement of incumbent or discharge from service a duty is cast on the employer to pay all the terminal benefits. Raising of the plea that a demand of justice notice was not made or that the trustees are not parties are absolutely frivolous, there should not be an occasion for an employee to file a writ petition for getting his dues. It only arises when such obdurate attitude is taken by the Bank and they refuse the payment of legitimate dues to the incumbent. Instead of realising their own duties which cast on them that the payment should be paid to the incumbent expeditiously, they are trying to defend the cause by raising this kind of uncalled for objections. Such objection cannot be countenance and it has to be rejected. It is also wrong to say that the petitioner is governed by Regulations 1970. When the Gratuity Act, 197 2 has already come into force payment shall be made according to this Act and not according to the socalled Gratuity Regulations. Section 7 of the Gratuity Act deals with determination of the amount of the gratuity. Section 7(1) deals with that the incumbent shall send written application to the employer. When the Gratuity Act, 197 2 has already come into force payment shall be made according to this Act and not according to the socalled Gratuity Regulations. Section 7 of the Gratuity Act deals with determination of the amount of the gratuity. Section 7(1) deals with that the incumbent shall send written application to the employer. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 says that the incumbent has made any application or not employer shall determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the incumbent to whom gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 7 read as under: "7. Determination of the amount of gratuity: (1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised in writing to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed, for payment of such gratuity; (2) As soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer shall whether an application referred to in Sub-section (1) has been made or not, determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined; (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity, within such time as may be prescribed, to the person to whom the gratuity is payable." 14. Thus by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act, it is mandatory duty cast on the employer to determine the amount of gratuity and pay incumbent in the time prescribed. Even if incumbent has not made any application then too under Section 7(2) a duty is cast on the respondent to make the payment of the gratuity. Therefore nothing turns on the objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank. 15. The respondent has also reiterated that since D.B. Civil Special has been preferred by the petitioner and which is pending therefore he cannot be deemed to have been discharged from the Bank. It is absolutely wrong. Once the incumbent has been discharged from service and is pursuing his remedy that does not mean that the incumbent still continues to be member of the service of the Bank. It is absolutely wrong. Once the incumbent has been discharged from service and is pursuing his remedy that does not mean that the incumbent still continues to be member of the service of the Bank. To deny the petitioner of his legitimate dues on this ground that his appeal is pending or a writ petition is pending is all frivolous. As soon as the incumbent goes out from the service either by way of superannuation or by discharge from service a duty is cast on the respondent Bank to pay his all terminal benefits. 16. In the written submission submitted by the respondent, two new arguments have been raised which need to be mentioned. One that the payment of gratuity is not applicable whose wages exceed to Rs. 1,000/- per month and second ground of delay. The petitioner has been constantly making requests for payment of his gratuity and same has been denied to him. Therefore it cannot be said that this delay can extinguish his right of payment of gratuity and provident fund. The objection is over ruled. Second objection regarding non-payment of gratuity to persons drawing wages more than Rs. 1,000/- is also wrong, and without any basis. In view of Regulations 49 of the 1979 Regulations, there is no such prohibition for an incumbent drawing wages for more than Rs. 1,000/-. Regulation 76 clearly lays down that all regulations prior to this shall stand superseded so long they are inconsistent with these Regulations. Regulation 76 reads as under: "76. Any rule, regulation, order, agreement, resolution or other instrument, or any usage, custom, convention or practice governing any matter dealt with in these regulations including allowance, perquisites and facilities shall on and from the appointed dated cease to have effect in regard to such matter unless the contrary is provided in these regulation; Provided that these shall not affect the validity of anything done or any claim arising prior to that date in pursuance of such agreement rule, regulation, resolution, other provisions or usage, custom, convention or practice. Explanation : It is clarified for the purpose of this regulation that provisions or practices now obtaining in respect of reimbursement of charges for taking personal accident insurance while on official tours, consideration by the Bank of payment of ad hoc compensation in the event of death or injury while discharging official duties and matters of a similar nature will not be considered as perquisites of an officer." 17. Thus this objection of the respondents is also misconceived and over ruled. 18. Now having found that the petitioners is entitled for the payment of provident fund and gratuity now question arises whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and interest in the matter or not. I think it is imminently just and fair that the respondent Bank should be saddled with the heavy compensation and interest for depriving the petitioner his legitimate dues. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to three authorities namely, State of Kerala and Ors. v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356 , Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1983(4) SCC 20 , and Raman Lal Mehta v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1984 RLR 273 . 19. In the case of State of Kerala and Ors. v. M. Padamanabhan Nair their Lordships has observed as under: "Pension and gratuity are not longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but are valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate commences at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. (Paras 1 & 2) The claim for interest made by the Government servant who was paid his pension and gratuity more than two years and three months after his retirement due to non production of Last Pay Certificate by the retiree, it was held, was rightly granted as the delay was due to lapse on the part of the Treasury Officer enjoined to issue the certificate under Rule 186 of Treasury Code (Bom).(Paras 3 & 4) The Supreme Court was inclined to grant 12% interest to the retired employee but did not do so as the employee had acquiesced in his claim being decreed at six per cent.(Para 4)" 20. Similarly in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) it has been observed as under: "10. The Slate and the subordinate officers responsible for their work are directed by a writ of mandamus to complete this computation by July 31, 1983, and by that date pension payment order correct and consistent with the direction here in given shall be issued without fail to the petitioner. The State is also directed by a mandamus of this court to pay the arrears of pension on the aforementioned computation within the same period with interest at 6 per cent from January 10, 1967. As the officers of the State have harrassed the petitioner which we feel is intentional, deliberate and motivated, therefore, we are constrained to award exemplary costs quantified as Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the petitioner before July 31, 1983." 21. Similarly this court has held in Raman Lal Mehta v. State of Rajasthan 1984 RLR 273 that the petitioner was entitled to interest at rate of 12 per cent of his due salary after giving two years grace period and it was directed that the petitioner should be paid his all arrears within four months and report should be submitted to the court within five months. 22. In the light of the legal position stated above I deem it just and proper that the respondent Bank is directed to determine the amount of provident fund and gratuity within a period of four months from today and pay the same to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to the interest at rate of 12 per cent from 7th August, 1980, i.e., after three months from the date of his discharge. The petitioner is also entitled for compensation for being delayed the payment of provident fund and gratuity, i.e., Rs. 5,000/-. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is also entitled to costs from the respondents. The cost is fixed Rs. 2,000/-.Writ allowed with costs. *******