JUDGMENT By the Court.—The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, making following prayers : (A) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent bank to pay further benefit of gratuity of Rs. 1,37,768.00 plus interest of the period which has been delayed by the bank. (B) To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (C) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. 2. As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner retired from service on 30th June, 2008 as Senior Branch Manager in the Bank of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. By the order dated 13th August, 2009 (Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition), the amount of gratuity was directed to be released in favour of the petitioner. Purusant thereto, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- as gratuity. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the computation, the petitioner was entitled to an amount of Rs. 4,87,768/- as gratuity but only an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- has been paid to him apparently on the ground that the same was the maximum amount of gratuity payable to any employee. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the relevant Rules, namely, the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules 1961 pertaining to gratuity have been amended with effect from 1.1.2006, and the limit of maximum gratuity payable to any employee has been enhanced to Rs. 10 lacs. As the petitioner retired on 30th June,2008, the said enhancement in the maximum limit of gratuity payable to any employee is applicable in the case of the petitioner, and the petitioner should have been paid the entire amount of gratuity, namely, Rs. 4,87,768/-. 5. A notice dated 22nd August,2009 ( Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition) has also been given by the petitioner to the respondents in this regard. 6. We have heard Sri S.P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nripendra Misra learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 7. 6. We have heard Sri S.P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nripendra Misra learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served in case the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent No. 1 and directing the respondent No. 1 to decide the same within a specified period. 8. In view of the above, we dispose of the Writ Petition with the following directions : (i) The petitioner will make a fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent No. 1 alonwith certified copy of this order within four weeks from today. (ii) The respondent No. 1 will decide the said representation in accordance with law by passing a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation. (iii) In case the petitioner is found entitled to certain further amount in respect of gratuity, the said amount will be paid to the petitioner within two months of the decision on the representation. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits. ————