IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 730 of 2010()
1. M.V.BALAKRISHNAN,AGED 65 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. N.K.DAMODARAN,AGED 65 YEARS,
3. M.K.GOPALAN,AGED 64,'KANCHANA',
4. BHASKARAN NAIR,AGED 66 YEARS,
5. V.P.SREENIVASAN,AGED 69 YEARS,
6. M.PHILIP,AGED 64 YEARS,
7. ABDUL SHUKKUR,AGED 63 YEARS,
8. KUNHIKANNAN.C,AGED 65 YEARS,
9. V.S.KOYATTY,AGED 59 YEARS,DARUL VADEEH,
10. E.DAKSHAYANI,AGED 64 YEARS,
11. P.GOPALANANKUTTY,AGED 65 YEARS,
12. K.ASOKAN,AGED 64 YEARS,
Vs
1. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT
... Respondent
2. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT
3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.K.SAJU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :13/08/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
R.P.No. 730/2010 in
W.P.(C).No. 30369/2009
==================
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010
O R D E R
This review petition is filed by the petitioners in the writ petition
seeking review of my judgment dated 13.11.2009. The subject matter
of the writ petition relates to payment of additional gratuity due to the
petitioners as computed by the authorities under the Payment of
Gratuity Act. In respect of the subject matter, a special leave petition
is pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, in the judgment,
following a Division Bench decision, I directed disbursal of the amounts
of gratuity to the petitioners on the petitioners furnishing a bond with
two serving employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board as sureties
for refund of the amounts so received by them, if ultimately the KSEB
succeeds in the appeal before the Supreme Court. That was because
in the Division Bench decision such a condition was incorporated in
similar cases. But the petitioners now submit that the Division Bench
themselves have in Annexure A3 judgment reviewed that condition
and directed as follows:
“3. Regarding furnishing of security for the release of DCRG, it
is ordered that the Board need not insist for the execution of bonds by
two serving employees. If security to the satisfaction of the concerned
Controlling Officers is furnished or bank guarantee is furnished, the
amount shall be released to the review petitioners and other similarly
placed employees.”
The petitioners seek similar relief in this review petition also.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners,
r.p.730/10 2
the learned Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel for
the Electricity Board.
3. Now that the Division Bench has modified their earlier
order, it is only appropriate that the petitioners herein also be given
the very same benefit. Accordingly, I direct that the Controlling
Authority need not insist on serving employees as sureties for the
purpose of release of the gratuity amounts. Instead, if the security to
the satisfaction of the Controlling Authority is furnished or bank
guarantee is furnished, the amounts shall be released to the review
petitioners. In order to enable the controlling authority to ascertain
whether the Electricity Board has deposited the amounts before the
Controlling Authority, the Electricity Board shall produce copies of the
chalan for deposit of the amounts due to the petitioners within one
week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount shall
be disbursed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge