IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33888 of 2005(H) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. M.R.VIJAYAN, THIRUVATHIRA, ENATHU P.O., VIA ADOOR (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (RTD), PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., KOTTAYAM). 2. P.GOPINATHAN, ASWATHI, K.K.ROAD, ELINJIPRA P.O., CHALAKKUDY, (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, RETIRED, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., KOTTAYAM). BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE (PU) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA FOR R1 SRI.MITHUN MARKOS FOR R1 SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.JAIBY PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.33888/05 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINS NO.PD/PA/2263 DATED 2.8.2005. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.PD/PA/2250 DATED 12.7.2005. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE RULES. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 27.12.1994. EXT.P4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE GO MS NO.96/2005/AD DATED 4.7.2005. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.8.2005. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.PD/PA/4129 DATED 15.10.2005. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 33888 OF 2005 ===================== Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners who were employees of the 1st respondent retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30/6/2005 and 30/4/2005 respectively. At the time of retirement, petitioners had to their credit 31 years of service and 32 years of service respectively. 2. Ext.P3 is the service rules for officers of the 1st respondent corporation and Clause 13 thereof provided for payment of gratuity at the rates specified therein. In so far as officers who retired on superannuation are concerned, this Rule provided that they will be paid one month's salary for every completed year of service subject to a maximum of 20 months salary. Accordingly, the entitlement of the petitioners were quantified, and under Ext.P1, 1st petitioner was paid an amount of `2,46,440/-. In so far as the second petitioner is concerned, by Ext.P2, he was paid `2,54,510/-. 3. It appears that based on a proposal made by the Managing Director of the 1st respondent, subsequent to their WPC No. 33888/05 :2 : retirement, Government issued Ext.P4(a) order dated 4/7/2005 according sanction for payment of gratuity to the employees of the 1st respondent at the rate of one month's salary for every completed year of service subject to a maximum of `3.50 lakhs. 4. First petitioner claimed the benefit of Ext.P4(a) by filing Ext.P5. However, the Company issued Ext.P6 circular clarifying that the benefit of Ext.P4(a) will be extended only w.e.f. 4/7/2005. In other words, the petitioners who retired prior to 4/7/2005 were held ineligible for the benefit of enhanced gratuity. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed praying that in view of the provisions of Section 4(5) of the Gratuity Act and the upper limit of Rs.3.50 lakhs provided in Section 4(3) thereof, petitioners should be ordered to be paid gratuity as provided in Ext.P4(a). 5. Act provides for payment of gratuity to employees like the petitioners on the date of his superannuation. Therefore, their entitlement either under the agreement or under the Act is to be reckoned with reference to that date. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners will have to be decided with reference to 30/6/2005 and 30/4/2005 respectively. As on that date while the Act provided for payment of gratuity at the rate of 15 days wages for every completed year of service with an upper limit of Rs.3.5 WPC No. 33888/05 :3 : lakhs, Ext.P3, the Company Scheme provided for payment of one month salary for every completed year of service subject to a maximum of 20 months' salary. 6. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, if their entitlement under the Act was reckoned, they would not have been eligible for anything more than 16 months salary, whereas it is the undisputed case that extending the benefit of Ext.P3, they were paid gratuity equivalent to that of 20 months' salary. Therefore, what has been extended to the petitioners is what was beneficial for them in terms of Section 4(5) of the Act. 7. Coming to the claim of the petitioners for the benefit of Ext.P4(a), as already seen, Ext.P4(a) was issued on 4/7/2005 and by Ext.P6 the company has also clarified that the liberalised payment will be effective from that date. Since the entitlement of the petitioners has to be reckoned as on the date of their retirement, they are not entitled to the benefit of any subsequent liberalised scheme. If that be so, they cannot claim the benefit of Ext.P4(a) and this Court will not be justified in allowing such claim. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp