IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35062 of 2009(C) PETITIONER(S): 1. RAVEENDRANATHAN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(RTD) KSEB, "RAGAM", VALIYATTIPARAMBU ROAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM. 2. T.MADHAVAN NAIR, ASISTANT ENGINEER,(RTD) KSEB, "MAA", PUTHIYOTTIL PILASSERY.P.O., KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RTD.) KSEB, ASWATHI BHAVAN, KARAKKUNNU.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. S.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RTD.) KSEB, USHAS, SANTHI NAGAR, KARUVAMBRAM.P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. 5. C.H.YOUSUF, LINEMAN (RTD.) KSEB, CHUNDANGA HOUSE, KATTUNGAL MUNDUPARAMBA.P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. A.HAMZA, DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTANT(RTD.) KSEB, FIRDOUS, SANTHI NAGAR, SUPPI BAZAR, PARAPPUR.P.O. KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. M.UBAIDULLA, ASSISTANT ENGINEER(RTD.) KSEB, HABEEBA MANZIL, PULAPPURA, KOTTAKKAL.P.O. MALAPPURAM. 8. P.MOHAMMED SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (RTD.) KSEB, POONTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, ELAKKAM, KARUVAMBRAM.P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 9. M.ABDUL BARI, REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICER (RETD.) KSEB, NIMMINNIYIL HOUSE, NORTH KOZHAKKOTTUR, AREACODE.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 10. C.GOVINDAN, SENIOR ASSISTANT(RTD.) KSEB, CHUNDAYIL HOUSE, MANKADA.P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. 11. P.MOHAMMEDALI, LINEMAN GRADE II (RETD.) KSEB, POTTAMMAL HOUSE, KARUVAMBRAM WEST P.O., NEAR JTS, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 12. A.M.KARTHIKEYAN, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RTD.) KSEB, 'NIKUNJAM' NILAMBUR.P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 13. M.PRABHAKARN, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RTD.) KSEB, MELETHODI HOUSE, VIRADOOR HILL, NILAMBUR.P.O. MALAPPURAM. 14. P.AYYAPPAN, SUB ENGINEER (RTD.) KSEB, THEKKEYIL HOUSE, MONGAM.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 15. P.K.ALI BAVA, ASSISTANT ENGINEER,(RTD.) KSEB, KALATHIL HOUSE, CHENNARA.P.O., MANGALAM(VIA), TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 16. K.V.VIJAYAN, SENIOR SUPERINTNDENT (RTD.) KSEB, 'DEEPTHI', KOVILAKATHUMURI, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 17. V.GOVINDAN SUB ENGINEER, (RTD.) KSEB, CHATHAMKULAM HOUSE, MUNDUPARAMBA.P.O., MALAPPURAM 18. N.GOPALAKRISHNAN, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RTD.)KSEB, JANAKI BHAVAN, EDAVANNAPARA, CHERUVAYOOR.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 19. K.KUNHIMOHAMMED, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (RETD.) KSEB, KAPPIL HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, WANDOOR.P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 20. K.ABDURAHIMAN, OFFICE ASSISTANT GRADE I (RETD.) KSEB, KOZHAKKUMPATTU HOUSE, PAZHAMKULANGARA, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYAMENT OF GRATUITY ACT (THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONERE KOZHIKODE). 2. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYAMENT OF GRATUITY ACT (THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM.) 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. ADV. SRI. K.S. ANIL, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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.