IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32160 of 2009(L)
1. K.M. NARAYANAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.K.SAJU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :11/11/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J
...............................................
W.P(C) No. 32160 of 2009
.................................................
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are retired employees of the Kerala State
Electricity Board. They were paid gratuity in accordance with
rules applicable to employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board.
But the petitioners approached the authority under the Payment of
Gratuity Act seeking additional gratuity as computed under the
Payment of Gratuity Act. The same was allowed by the controlling
authority and the Board was directed to pay additional gratuity to
the petitioners. Appeals filed by the Board against the orders of
the controlling authority were also rejected. The grievance of the
petitioners in this writ petition is that despite the orders of the
authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the amounts
deposited by the Board before the authorities under the Payment of
Gratuity Act are not being disbursed to the petitioners.
2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala
State Electricity Board as well as the learned Government Pleader
appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
3. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the
Board is that although a Division Bench of this Court as held that
W.P(C) No. 32160 of 2009 -2-
employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board are entitled to
gratuity as computed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the Board
has taken that matter in appeal before the Supreme Court and
there is a stay granted by the Supreme Court in that case.
According to the standing counsel for the Board, in view of that
stay, unless and until the Supreme Court either decides the matter
finally against the Board or vacates the interim order in that case,
the amounts deposited cannot be disbursed.
4. I do not agree with the standing counsel for the Electricity
Board. In fact a Division Bench of this court has in Abdul
Rahiman v. District Collector, Malappuram and another
[2009 (4) KHC 283 (DB)] held that even when a decision of a
Division Bench of this court is stayed by the apex court, the learned
single Judges of this court are bound to follow the decision of the
Division Bench as it continues to be a binding precedent for them.
As per that judgment, the interim order of stay granted by the
Supreme Court only relieves the concerned parties in the judgment
under appeal from obeying the directions in the judgment under
appeal. Therefore, simply because the order of the Division Bench
is stayed by the Supreme Court, in one case that that cannot
operate as a stay in other cases in respect of similar employees
W.P(C) No. 32160 of 2009 -3-
unless these subsequent orders are also stayed by the Supreme
Court. At the same time, I think that there should be some
protection for the Electricity Board, if ultimately the Supreme
Court decides the question posed before them in favour of the
Board. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:
If the decision of the Supreme Court does not come within 4
months from today, on expiry of four months, the respondents 1
and 2 shall disburse the amounts deposited with them to the
petitioners on the petitioners executing a bond with two serving
employees of the Board as sureties for repayment of the amounts
so disbursed, if ultimately the Supreme Court decides the matter in
favour of the Board in the appeal pending. If the petitioners are
not able to find two serving employees as sureties the amounts
need be disbursed only after the appeal before the Supreme Court
is over, in which case the amount due would be paid with 10%
interest.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs