Reminder To Gratuity Letter to Bank

 

Date: July 18, 2026

To,

The Managing Director & CEO,

Union Bank of India, 

Central Office,

239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point,

Mumbai – 400021

Subject: Rejoinder and Final Pre-Litigation Notice – Rejection of the Bank’s "Case-Specific" stance in light of Gratuity 

Appeal No. 15/2020-A.7 (UBI v. Sri Shiva Nand Gupta); Demand for differential Gratuity arrears under Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Ref:

1. Bank's Reply Email dated ⁠09 July 2026 on my letter/ email dated 03June 2026 denying differential gratuity.

2. Order of the Appellate Authority & Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad in The Chairman, Union Bank of India & Ors. v. Sri Shiva Nand Gupta (Gratuity Appeal No. 15/2020-A.7).

Respected Sir,

I am in receipt of the bank’s reply email dated 9th July 2026, wherein the management has summarily rejected my claim for differential gratuity arrears for service rendered beyond 30 years by asserting that such judicial and administrative orders are "case-specific and cannot be applied in each and every case."

This stand is legally untenable, logically flawed, and amounts to hostile discrimination against a retired officer of the same institution. 

Please take this as my formal rejoinder and final statutory notice before I initiate recovery proceedings before the competent Labour Authorities.

1. The Precedent of Union Bank of India v. Sri Shiva Nand Gupta (Appeal No. 15/2020-A.7)

The bank’s assertion that these orders are "case-specific" stands completely demolished by the definitive legal ruling passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad in the bank's own matter: The Chairman, Union Bank of India & Ors. v. Sri Shiva Nand Gupta.

In that landmark apex appellate order, the Labour Authority scrutinized the exact same Regulation 46 of the Union Bank of India Officer Employees' Service Regulations, 1979 and unequivocally rejected the bank's restrictive interpretation through the following binding observations:

On the Interpretation of "Additional" Service: The Appellate Authority held:

The Regulation of the appellant has used the word 'rate' twice and the word 'additional' has been prefixed to the second rate, which means that both rates cannot be read in isolation but in continuation. As such, the second rate (15 days salary) is to be topped up with the first rate (30 days salary) and when combined, it becomes 45 days wages for each year beyond 30 years."

On the Illegality of Lowering the Base Rate: The court explicitly noted the absurdity of the bank's stance:

"There is no logic to pay the rate of one month up to 30 years but 15 days wages after 30 years. Payment of gratuity for 15 days for each year is against the intent of the Parliament... The base rate would continue beyond 30 years too, as the provisions of the Act have not restricted the payment of gratuity after 30 years."

On the Historical Intent (Sastry & Desai Awards): The order confirmed that historical banking accords intended long service to be specially rewarded:

"...where a workman has put in service over 30 years he should be paid an extra amount at the rate of additional half of a month's pay for each completed year of service beyond 30 years... The intent is very clear that the service beyond 30 years is to be one and a half months' pay [45 days]."

2. Application of Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

The Appellate Authority firmly reminded Union Bank of India that under Section 4(5) of the Act, an employee's right to receive "better terms of gratuity" under any contract or award is absolute. The bank cannot use its internal rules to whittle down statutory benefits or create artificial ceilings to underpay its senior-most officers.

3. Hostile Discrimination and Arbitrary Litigation

By stating that this rule applies only to specific individuals who successfully drag the bank to court (like Rekha Devi or Shiva Nand Gupta), Union Bank of India is violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India (Right to Equality). The bank cannot maintain two parallel sets of Service Regulations—one for retirees who litigate and another for retirees who do not.

Furthermore, forcing elderly senior citizens into individual litigation over a structurally settled rule directly defies the Central Government’s National Litigation Policy, which mandates that public sector banks must resolve systemic service matters through dialogue rather than clogging the administrative machinery of the ALC/DLC offices.

4. Final Notice of Action

Take notice that if Union Bank of India fails to review my superannuation records and release the differential gratuity arrears calculated at the combined rate of 45 days' wages for every year of service rendered beyond 30 years within 15 days of receiving this notice, I shall proceed with the following actions without further communication:

1. Filing of Form 'N' before the competent Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) for a direct recovery order, claiming the principal shortfall along with 10% per annum compound interest for the period of delayed payment, as mandated under Section 7(3A) of the Act.

2. Escalation to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) Grievance Cell (CPGRAMS) and the Ministry of Finance, submitting the bank’s written rejection alongside the Dhanbad Appellate Authority’s order to highlight the bank's active harassment of senior citizens.

I trust that the competent management will act with administrative integrity, respect its own judicial precedents, and settle this legitimate statutory claim immediately.

Yours faithfully,

Sent from my iPhone