IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31397 of 2009(T)
1. K.P.MADHAVAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (RTD.)
... Petitioner
2. K.C.KALLIANIKUTTY, ASSISTANT ACCOUNT
3. KUSALAN A.K., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (RTD)
4. M.VALSAN, SUB ENGINEER (RTD) 'VIASAKH'
5. K.C. BHASKARAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER(RTD),
6. V.RAVEENDRAN, SENIOR ASSISTANT (RTD)
7. M.SUBHAKARAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (RTD)
8. K.M.GOPALAN ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
9. M.KUNHAPPA SUPERINTENDENT (RTD)
10. P.RAMACHANDRAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (RTD)
11. K.K.SADANANDAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (RTD)
12. M.C.RASHEED LINE MAN GRADE I (RTD)
13. K.C.PAVITHRAN, SUB ENGINEER (RTD)
Vs
1. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF
... Respondent
2. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT
3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.PAREETH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :20/11/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J
...............................................
W.P(C) No. 31397 of 2009
.................................................
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners in this writ petition are retired employees of
the KSEB. They were paid gratuity as per KSR which was
adopted by the KSEB. The petitioners approached the
Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act seeking
a direction to the Board to disburse the balance gratuity due to
them as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, which was allowed by
the Controlling Authority by Ext.P1 order. The petitioners have
filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the KSEB to pay to
the petitioners the balance gratuity as ordered by the
Controlling Authority.
2. The learned standing counsel for the KSEB would
contend that the decision of the Division Bench based on which
the impugned orders have been passed, has been taken in appeal
before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has already
stayed the operation of that judgment. Therefore, according to
the Standing Counsel, the amounts should not be directed to be
disbursed to the petitioners until the Supreme Court finally
W.P(C) No. 31397 of 2009 -2-
decides the matter, although amounts have been deposited with
the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
3. I have heard both sides.
4. This Court has in, the decision in Abdul Rehiman v.
District Collector, Malappuram [2009 (4) KHC 283], held that
even when a decision of the Division Bench is stayed by the
Supreme Court, the learned Single Judges of this Court are
bound by the law declared by the Division Bench, until the same
has been set aside by the Supreme Court. That being so, in this
case, although the Division Bench judgment has been stayed by
the Supreme Court, the petitioners in this case are entitled to
the benefit of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this
Court. But another Division Bench has issued certain directions
to safeguard the interest of the Board in the event of the Board
ultimately succeeding before the Supreme Court, which are to be
followed in this case also.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
If, within four months, the Board is not able to get the
appeal pending before the Supreme Court disposed of, the
W.P(C) No. 31397 of 2009 -3-
gratuity amounts deposited shall be disbursed to the petitioners
on the petitioners furnishing bonds with two serving employees
of the Board as sureties for due repayment of the amounts so
disbursed, if ultimately the Supreme Court decides the cases in
favour of the Board. If the petitioners are not able to find two
serving employees of the Board as sureties, the amounts need be
disbursed only after disposal of the appeal pending before the
Supreme Court. But in that event, the Board would be liable pay
further interest at the rate of 10% on the amounts so due.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs