IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24857 of 2009(B)
1. V.G.SREEDHARAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. APPELLETTE AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF
... Respondent
2. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE
3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.PAREETH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :28/08/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).24857/2009
--------------------
Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was an employee of KSEB. He approached
the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act
for gratuity in terms of the provisions of Payment of Gratuity
Act. He is aggrieved by the inordinate delay in release of the
balance amount of gratuity kept in deposit with the Appellate
Authority, the 1st respondent, even after dismissal of the
appeal filed by the Board in gratuity case relating to the
petitioner. The Board has not challenged the orders passed
by the authority concerned.
2. A Division Bench of this Court KSEB v.
Mohankumar(2008 (3) KLT 73) held that the employees
of the Electricity Board are entitled to gratuity under the
provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act. It seems that the
Board has preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Notice has been issued on the Special Leave Petition and an
order on such petition has been passed, points out the
learned counsel for the Electricity Board. He also refers to
W.P.(C).24857/09
2
the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.439/2009 directing that the additional gratuity amount
found due to the writ petitioner in the said case shall be
released to him on him executing a bond along with two
serving employees of the Board to refund the amount, if the
decision of the apex Court is in favour of the Board. Amount
was directed to be released to the writ petitioner within four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment
namely 6.4.2009. The Special Leave Petition pending before
the Supreme Court is not yet disposed of. Learned counsel
for the Board submits that similar direction may be issued in
relation to the petitioner in the instant case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a retired employee of the Board and serving
employees of the Board are not willing to stand as surety.
He is willing to execute the bond that if the Supreme Court
ultimately takes a decision holding that the employees of the
Board are not entitled to gratuity under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, they shall refund the amount paid to them.
W.P.(C).24857/09
3
4. I find force in the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the serving employees of the
Board may not be likely to stand as a surety for a retired
employee and I also take note of the fact that in the instant
case, the petitioner only claims the benefit of orders passed
by the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity
Act. Such orders have become final as on date. Petitioner, a
retired employee, cannot be asked to wait for the benefit,
because according to the Board, the question of law has been
agitated before the Supreme Court. If the Board was
aggrieved by the order passed by the authority under the
Act, Board should have independently challenged the said
order, before this Court. That has not been done.
5. Petitioner is entitled to interest as awarded by the
controlling authority under the Act. But in circumstances
where the issue regarding the eligibility is pending before
the Supreme Court, payment of interest shall be deferred
for a specific period.
6. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the
W.P.(C).24857/09
4
appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act to
disburse to the petitioner the amount deposited by the
Electricity Board with such authority as gratuity payable to
the petitioner, on production of a copy of this judgment.
Board shall pay the interest as directed by the competent
authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act provided the
order passed by the authority has become final. Board shall
be permitted to six months’ time from today to pay the
interest and if within the said period, the issue as regards
the eligibility of retired employees of the Board to receive
gratuity under the Act is yet to be decided by the Supreme
Court, then the Board shall pay interest as directed by the
competent authority on condition that the petitioner
executes a bond agreeing to refund the interest portion, if
ultimately the issue is decided in favour of the Board, by
the Honourable Supreme Court. Such bond shall be
executed on a 50 rupees stamp paper.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs