JUDGMENT : 1. This intra court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Rules of the Court has been preferred by the appellant-District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Sitapur whereby judgment and order dated 24.12.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15591 (S/S) of 2019 filed by the respondent herein (who was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge) has been allowed and the resolution of the Committee of Management of the appellant-Bank dated 07.10.2013 so far as the same relates to respondent-petitioner has been quashed and the appellant-Bank has further been directed to release and pay the amount of gratuity of Rs.6,17,905/-to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment. Learned Single Judge has further directed that payment shall be made within six weeks from the date a copy of said judgment and order is produced before the authorities of the appellant-Bank concerned. 2. Heard Sri A.R. Khan, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sridhar Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent and perused the record available before us in this appeal. 3. Sri A.R. Khan, learned counsel for appellant-Bank has raised two grounds while challenging the judgment and order dated 24.12.2021 passed by learned Single Judge. Firstly, it has been argued by Sri A.R. Khan, learned counsel for appellant that learned Single Judge has erred in law in entertaining the writ petition in the wake of availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Secondly, it has also been argued on behalf of appellant-Bank that judgments cited on its behalf were not discussed and considered by learned Single Judge and that learned Single Judge has committed manifest error of law in coming to the conclusion that the respondent-petitioner was entitled to be paid the amount of gratuity. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel representing the respective parties. 5. From a perusal of the judgment and order under appeal herein, what we find is that it is not that the issue of maintainability of writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 5. From a perusal of the judgment and order under appeal herein, what we find is that it is not that the issue of maintainability of writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has considered the same and has leaned in favour of exercising his discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even in the wake of availability of alternative remedy giving the reasons. Learned Single Judge, while exercising his discretion to entertain the petition, has clearly stated that the writ petition was liable to be entertained even in the wake of availability of alternative remedy for the reason that the respondent-petitioner is a senior citizen, who has retired way back on 03.06.2013. Learned Single Judge has further observed that in respect of the employees retiring from the appellant-Bank there is no provision of pension and it is the amount of gratuity which is paid to the retired employees. It has also been observed by learned Single Judge that the principle that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be entertained only on exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and the discretion; rather than rule of exclusion of jurisdiction of this Court. Learned Single Judge has also made a reference in this regard to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishna Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 . 6. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded and observations made by learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal, what we find is that learned Single Judge proceeded to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India considering the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the respondent-petitioner is a retired employee and no pension is available to him and further that even for invoking the remedy said to have been available under Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, he will have to make certain deposits. Thus, requiring a retired bank employee where no pension is admissible/available to avail the statutory remedy, that too, only on deposit of certain amount, in our considered opinion, would be too harsh and iniquitous. Thus, requiring a retired bank employee where no pension is admissible/available to avail the statutory remedy, that too, only on deposit of certain amount, in our considered opinion, would be too harsh and iniquitous. It is trite in law that rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and in appropriate cases the writ petition can directly be entertained by this Court without insisting for taking recourse to alternative remedy. However, such discretion needs to be exercised so as to serve the interest of justice. In the instant case, the reasons for which learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion while entertaining the writ petition and did not insist for exhaustion of alternative remedy, in our opinion, gave sufficient ground to learned Single Judge to exercise his discretion for entertaining the writ petition. We, thus do not find any substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant-Bank in this regard. 7. As far as the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant-Bank that the learned Single Judge while passing the judgment did not take into account the judgments cited, we may only notice that it is not that learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration various judgments cited by the appellant-Bank. In para 19 of the judgment under appeal herein, the cases cited on behalf of appellant-Bank have been mentioned. In para 20 of the judgment, it has clearly been observed by learned Single Judge that the judgments cited by learned counsel for appellant-Bank were not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and has even observed further that in all such cases forfeiture of gratuity was upheld for the reason that forfeiture had resulted on account of some misconduct of the employee concerned which had resulted in damage of some property of the employer. Learned Single Judge has further observed that in the present case nothing has been proved against the petitioner nor even any inquiry into any misconduct of respondent-petitioner was conducted to find out as to whether the loans disbursed by the respondent-petitioner were wrongly/illegally disbursed. Learned Single Judge has also given a finding that no efforts were made by the appellant-Bank to recover the amount. Thus, what we find is that learned Single Judge has considered the judgments cited on behalf of the appellant-Bank while deciding the writ petition. 8. Learned Single Judge has also given a finding that no efforts were made by the appellant-Bank to recover the amount. Thus, what we find is that learned Single Judge has considered the judgments cited on behalf of the appellant-Bank while deciding the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for appellant has again relied upon the said judgements while arguing the present appeal which have been considered by us. So far as the judgment in the case of Remington Rand of India Ltd. vs. The Workmen; AIR 1970 SC 1421 is concerned, no such issue had arisen in the said case as is involved in the present case. Emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for appellant-Bank on paras 18 and 19 of the said judgment. In the said paragraphs, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered as to whether the scheme of payment of gratuity needs to be modified by providing a proviso that in case where there has been termination of service on account of an employee found guilty of some act involving violence against the management or other employees or on account of his riotous or disorderly behaviour in or near the company’s premises. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in such a situation company would be entitled to forfeit the gratuity which would otherwise be payable to the concerned employee. In the instant case, an unambiguous finding has been recorded by learned Single Judge that no inquiry was conducted by the appellant-Bank into any misconduct of the respondent-petitioner much less into any misconduct as has been discussed in para 19 of the judgment in the case of Remington Rand of India Ltd (supra). Thus, it is clear that this judgment has no application so far as the facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned. 9. Learned counsel for appellant-Bank thereafter relies upon the judgment in the case of Management of Tournamulla Estate vs. Workmen; AIR (1973) SC 2344. In the said judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court only lays down that if a workman is guilty of a serious misconduct his gratuity can be forfeited. This judgment also does not have any application to the facts of the present case for the reason that there is nothing on record to establish that the respondent-petitioner has ever been found of guilty of any misconduct. 10. This judgment also does not have any application to the facts of the present case for the reason that there is nothing on record to establish that the respondent-petitioner has ever been found of guilty of any misconduct. 10. Arguing on behalf of the appellant-Bank, reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, ONGC Ltd. and another vs. V.U. Warrier, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 245 . This case also, in our considered opinion, does not have any bearing so far as the issues involved in the present case are concerned. In this case, matter related to forfeiture of/recovery from gratuity of amount, of penal rent which employee had made himself liable on account of the fact that he had overstayed in the official accommodation. In other words, there were certain dues of the employer which were sought to be recovered from the employee. 11. In the instant case, there were no dues which were sought to be recovered from the respondent-petitioner. In fact, the appellant-Bank took the stand not to pay the amount of gratuity to the respondent-petitioner giving the reason that certain loan accounts, where the loans were disbursed by the respondent-petitioner, had turned into NPA (Non Performing Assets). In our considered opinion, if it is the case of the appellant-Bank that the respondent-petitioner had acted in an illegal manner or against the policy or any rule of the Bank while disbursing the loan, it was always open to the Bank to have conducted an inquiry into the misconduct and in case in the disciplinary proceedings, it was found that the respondent-petitioner had misconducted himself which had resulted into loss to the bank, then the issue relating to forfeiture of or recovery from gratuity may have been material. Admittedly, in this case, no such material is available on the basis of which the respondent-petitioner can be said to have misconducted. Thus, the judgment in the case of Secretary, ONGC Ltd. and another (supra) does not have any bearing to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. Next judgment relied upon by learned counsel for appellant-Bank is the judgment dated 15.12.2020 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Raghbendra Singh. Thus, the judgment in the case of Secretary, ONGC Ltd. and another (supra) does not have any bearing to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. Next judgment relied upon by learned counsel for appellant-Bank is the judgment dated 15.12.2020 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Raghbendra Singh. In the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has given a finding that if an employee occupies a quarter beyond the specified period, the penal rent would be natural consequence and such penal rent can be adjusted against the dues payable including the gratuity. So far as the ratio in the case of M/s.Steel Authority of India Ltd (supra) is concerned, there cannot be any quarrel and the same is binding, however, this judgment also does not have any application to the facts of the present case for the reason that there were no dues against the respondent employee which were to be recovered. 13. It is also noticeable that the resolution of the Committee of Management of the appellant-Bank dated 07.10.2013 did not require any forfeiture of or recovery from the amount of gratuity payable to the respondent-petitioner. By the said resolution, it was decided that an inquiry be conducted into disbursement of loan and it was also decided that after inquiry the recovery proceedings be initiated. There is nothing on record which can show that any inquiry was conducted or any recovery proceedings were initiated for recovering the loan amount by the appellant-Bank. 14. There is yet another fact which deserves to be noticed. The respondent-petitioner has been making efforts by approaching various authorities for payment of his gratuity amount and in this effort he also approached the Additional Commissioner-cum-Additional Registrar (Bank) Cooperative, U.P., Lucknow who was informed by the appellant-Bank vide its letter dated 10.02.2017 that the gratuity is not being paid to the respondent-petitioner and the same has been adjusted towards unrecovered amount in the loan accounts which were disbursed by the respondent-petitioner. The said letter also states that in case the amount in the loan account is deposited by the defaulter, the respondent-petitioner shall be paid the amount of gratuity. Learned Single Judge has recorded the finding in his judgment that in three loan accounts, amount has also been deposited. This finding has not been disputed by the appellant-Bank. 15. The said letter also states that in case the amount in the loan account is deposited by the defaulter, the respondent-petitioner shall be paid the amount of gratuity. Learned Single Judge has recorded the finding in his judgment that in three loan accounts, amount has also been deposited. This finding has not been disputed by the appellant-Bank. 15. It is needless to say that gratuity is neither a bounty nor fortuitous amount. It is paid to a retired employee in lieu of his services rendered in the prime time of his life to the employer and therefore depriving an employee of the amount of gratuity, especially in a case where no pension is available, cannot be justified, in any manner. The same would even be termed as harsh and iniquitous. 16. For the reasons recorded above, we have no hesitation to hold that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit, which is hereby dismissed. 17. However, in the facts of the case, there will be no order as to costs.