IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 18237 of 2008(U) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. V.A.SOBHANAKUMARI, FINANCE OFFICER (RETIRED), KSEB, PANACHIYIL HOUSE, PALLITHAZHAM, MULANTHURUTHY PO., ERNAKULAM 2. KUMARI PAUL, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED), KSEB,KARAPILIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY PO, ERNAKULAM 3. P.KANAKAMMA, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED), KSEB, THAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGOM, THRIPPUNITHURA-682301 4. P.VILASINI AMMA, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT RETIRED, KSEB,PRASATHY, SNRA-63, SASTHRI NAGAR MARADU PO., ERNAKULAM BY ADV. MR.N.SUGATHAN SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR MR.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KSEB, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KSEB, PATTOM PALACE PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADV. MR. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1-2 MR.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO.30480 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) Nos. 18237 of 2008 & 30480 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T In these two writ petitions the petitioners are retired employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. According to them, although they are entitled to payment of gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, they have been paid only gratuity as per the rules of the Kerala State Electricity Board, which is less than what is payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act. They submit that the eligibility of the retired employees of the KSEB for receiving gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act has been declared by a Division Bench of this court and therefore the Board may be directed to pay the difference in gratuity to the petitioners. 2. The learned counsel for the KSEB raises two contentions. The first is that the decision of the Division Bench of this court has been taken in appeal before the Supreme Court, in which the Supreme Court has granted a stay also. Therefore, this court may not now direct payment of gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act in these cases is their contention. The second W.P(C) Nos. 18237 of 2008 & 30480 of 2009 -2- contention is that the remedy of the petitioners lies in approaching the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for establishing their right. They cannot straight away come to this court with a writ petition claiming gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act is the other contention of the K.S.E.B. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The legal issue involved in this case as to whether a stay by the Supreme Court in one case operates as a stay for all other cases in this court, is covered by the Division Bench decision of this court in Abdu Rahiman v. District Collector, Malappuram and Another [2009(4) KHC 283], wherein this court has held that even when a decision of the Division Bench of this court is stayed by the Supreme Court, the law declared by the Division Bench is binding on single judges of this court and subsequent cases coming before the single Judges, shall be decided on the basis of the law declared by the Division Bench, notwithstanding the fact that the earlier Division Bench decision is stayed by the Supreme Court. 5. As far as the second contention is concerned, the Board W.P(C) Nos. 18237 of 2008 & 30480 of 2009 -3- has no dispute regarding the factual aspects which goes into the calculation of gratuity due to the petitioners under the Payment of Gratuity Act in accordance with the Division Bench decision. It is not disputed before me that the right of the employees of the KSEB for getting gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act has been declared by this court. There is no dispute whatsoever regarding the wages of the petitioners and their period of service. All what is required is to calculate gratuity as stipulated in the Payment of Gratuity Act and pay the same to the petitioners. It is also the statutory duty of the K.S.E.B. That being so, I do not think that I should relegate the petitioners to the remedy by way of filing an application under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in so far as the gratuity can easily be calculated by the KSEB itself in accordance with law declared by this court. 6. However, the Division Bench of this court has issued certain directions also to safeguard the interests of the KSEB in the matter, in view of the stay granted by the Supreme Court against the Division Bench decision of this court. Accordingly, following those directions, I dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions: W.P(C) Nos. 18237 of 2008 & 30480 of 2009 -4- If the appeal pending before the Supreme Court is not disposed of within four months, the difference in gratuity between the amount payable under the Act and the amount paid to the petitioners, shall be paid to the petitioners, on the petitioners executing a bond with two serving employees of the Board as sureties for due repayment of the amounts so received, if ultimately the Supreme Court decides the appeal in favour of the KSEB. However, if the petitioners are unable to find two serving employees as sureties the additional gratuity need be disbursed to the petitioner only after disposal of the appeal pending before the Supreme Court, in which event if ultimately the Supreme Court decides the appeal against the KSEB, the additional amount of gratuity shall be paid to the petitioners with 10% interest thereon. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGEQ rhs