Letter To Bank For Enhanced Gratuity

 To,

The Managing Director & CEO,
Union Bank of India,
Central Office, Mumbai

Sub: Payment of Differential Gratuity as per Service Regulations — Violation of Principle of Equality Before Law — Legal Notice

Ref: My earlier letters dated 25.10.2025 and 22.02.2026 (unresponded)

Sir/Madam,

I, Danendra Kumar Jain (PF No. 49709), retired from Union Bank of India on 31.07.2016 from Regional Office, Ranchi, after rendering long and meritorious service to the bank.

I have already brought to your notice vide my letters dated 25.10.2025 and 22.02.2026 that the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Office of the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner, Central, Ahmedabad) vide Order No. ALC/ADI/48(37)/2024 dated 01.09.2025 has directed Central Bank of India to pay gratuity calculated at 45 days per year of service for service exceeding 30 years, as per the Service Regulations of the bank. The said order is enclosed for ready reference.

Despite submission of the said order and my two written representations, the bank has neither responded nor taken any remedial action. I am informed verbally that the bank’s position is that court/authority orders are “case specific” and cannot be applied to similarly placed officers.

I wish to state that this position is legally untenable, unconstitutional, and unsustainable for the following reasons:

        1.      ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — EQUALITY BEFORE LAW
Article 14 guarantees that the State (and instrumentalities of the State, which include nationalised banks under Article 12) shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that when a benefit or entitlement flows from a statutory provision or service regulation, it cannot be selectively denied to similarly situated employees. Selective denial amounts to hostile discrimination and is void.

        2.      SERVICE REGULATIONS ARE STATUTORY IN CHARACTER
The gratuity entitlement at 45 days per year for service exceeding 30 years flows from the Bank’s own Service Regulations. These regulations apply uniformly to all officers. The Controlling Authority’s order is not creating a new right — it is merely recognising and enforcing a right that already exists under the Regulations. Therefore, the bank’s obligation to pay the same benefit to all similarly placed retirees is not contingent on each individual filing a separate application.

        3.      PRINCIPLE AGAINST DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union of India (1983) AIR 130 SC categorically held that classification among pensioners/retirees on arbitrary grounds is unconstitutional. The same principle applies to gratuity. You cannot pay full entitlement to one retiree pursuant to a court order while denying the same to other identically placed retirees.

        4.      PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 — SECTION 4
Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the proviso therein, read with the Bank’s Service Regulations, entitles all eligible employees to gratuity computed at the higher rate applicable under Service Regulations. Denial of the same is a statutory violation.

        5.      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION
As a retiree of Union Bank of India governed by the same Service Regulations under which the Ahmedabad court/authority has ruled in favour of similarly placed retirees, I have a legitimate expectation that the bank will voluntarily extend the same benefit to me without compelling me to undergo litigation.

In view of the above, I hereby call upon the bank to:
(a) Calculate the differential gratuity payable to me, i.e., the difference between the gratuity already paid and the amount payable at 45 days per year of service beyond 30 years, as per Service Regulations;

(b) Pay the said differential amount together with simple interest at 10% per annum from the date of my entitlement to the date of actual payment, as directed by the Controlling Authority in the aforesaid order;

(c) Comply with the above within 30 days of receipt of this notice.

Please be advised that in the event the bank fails to comply within the aforesaid period, I shall be constrained to:

(i) File an application before the Controlling Authority under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, before the Office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi/Jharkhand;

(ii) File a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi invoking Articles 14, 16, and 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of my fundamental rights and service entitlements; and

(iii) If necessary, approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
I trust that the bank will act fairly, lawfully, and in accordance with its own Service Regulations, and spare both parties the inconvenience and expense of litigation.

Yours faithfully,