IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35062 of 2009(C)
1. RAVEENDRANATHAN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(RTD)
... Petitioner
2. T.MADHAVAN NAIR, ASISTANT ENGINEER,(RTD)
3. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SENIOR
4. S.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, SENIOR
5. C.H.YOUSUF, LINEMAN (RTD.)
6. A.HAMZA, DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTANT(RTD.)
7. M.UBAIDULLA, ASSISTANT ENGINEER(RTD.)
8. P.MOHAMMED SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
9. M.ABDUL BARI, REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICER
10. C.GOVINDAN, SENIOR ASSISTANT(RTD.)
11. P.MOHAMMEDALI, LINEMAN GRADE II
12. A.M.KARTHIKEYAN, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
13. M.PRABHAKARN, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
14. P.AYYAPPAN, SUB ENGINEER (RTD.)
15. P.K.ALI BAVA, ASSISTANT ENGINEER,(RTD.)
16. K.V.VIJAYAN, SENIOR SUPERINTNDENT (RTD.)
17. V.GOVINDAN SUB ENGINEER, (RTD.)
18. N.GOPALAKRISHNAN, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
19. K.KUNHIMOHAMMED, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
20. K.ABDURAHIMAN, OFFICE ASSISTANT GRADE I
Vs
1. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE
... Respondent
2. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :07/12/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 35062 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 7th December, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are retired employees of the Kerala State
Electricity Board. They obtained orders from the controlling authority
under the Payment of Gratuity Act for payment of balance gratuity
due to them as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Appeal filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board against that order
has also been dismissed. Those orders were passed based on the
judgments of this Court holding that the employees of the Kerala
State Electricity Board are governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Their grievance in this writ petition is that despite the dismissal of the
appeals, respondents 1 and 2 are not disbursing the gratuity amount
deposited with them by the Kerala State Electricity Board. They
therefore seek the following reliefs:
“a) To issue a direction to the 1st respondent to release the
balance amount of gratuity, kept in deposit pursuant to the
original orders of the 2nd in gratuity cases filed by the petitioners
which are confirmed in appeal by Ext. P1 series orders, to the
petitioners forthwith.
b) a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to
deposit the admissible interest payable to the petitioners as
ordered in the original orders in the gratuity cases within a time
frame to be fixed by this Court so as to enable the 1st respondent
to release the same also to the petitioners.”
2. The learned standing counsel for the Board submits that
against the judgments of this Court relied upon by the authorities
under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the Board has filed an appeal
before the Supreme Court, in which there is a stay and therefore if at
present the amounts are disbursed to the petitioners, that would
cause irreparable injury to the Board, if, ultimately, the appeal
pending before the Supreme Court is allowed. The learned
Government Pleader would also take the stand that in view of the fact
that the judgments of this Court relied upon by respondents 1 and 2
have been stayed, they found it not proper to disburse the amounts at
present.
3. A Division Bench of this Court has in Abdu Rahiman v.
District Collector, Malappuram & another, 2009(4) KHC 283
held that even if a decision of the Division Bench is stayed by the
Supreme Court, when other matters on the same question come up
before the Single Judges of this Court, Single Judges are bound to
follow the ratio of the decision which is under stay. However, the
Division Bench of this Court has laid down certain conditions for
disbursal of the amounts to safeguard the interest of the Kerala State
Electricity Board in other respects. Therefore, following those
judgment, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:
If for 4 months from now, the appeal before the Supreme Court
is still undisposed of, respondents 1 and 2 shall disburse the amounts
due to the petitioners after obtaining a bond from the petitioners with
two serving employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board as
sureties for due repayment of the amounts so received by them, if,
ultimately, the Supreme Court decides the issue in favour of the
Kerala State Electricity Board. If the petitioners are not able to find
serving employees as sureties, the amounts need be disbursed only
after the Supreme Court finally disposes of the matter. In such a
case, the petitioners would be entitled to 12% interest on the amounts
due to them over and above the interest payable under the Act.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.