IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16626 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. THAMPI ABRAHAM, MANAGER (FINANCE & ACCOUNTS) (RETD), PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., RESIDING AT OLIVET PUTHENPURAKKAL, PAYYAPPADI P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. M.A.STEPHEN, MANAGER (FINANCE & ACCOUNTS (RETD), PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., RESIDING AT MURIANIKKAL HOUSE, KOTTAYAM -3. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE, KOTTAYAM 686004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA SC SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).16626/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners, who are the retired Managers in the third respondent Company, are aggrieved that a decision taken by the third respondent Company for extending pay revision benefits decided as per Exts.P10 and P15 Board resolutions, has not been approved by the Government. Since the third respondent is a Government Company, approval of the Government is necessary in this regard. Exts.P11 and P13 communications addressed by the Company are pending before the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the Government does not have any commitment in the financing of the third respondent Company, approval of the Government may not be really required for extending the pay revision benefits in favour of petitioners and similarly situated persons. In my view, that aspect need not be considered and decided upon at this stage because if the Government approves the resolutions, Exts.P11 and P13, the controversy really may not arise at all. W.P.(C).16626/2008 2 2. Another aspect, in relation to which the petitioners are aggrieved is the quantification of the gratuity payable to them. Ext.P2 Service Rules inter alia provides for quantification of the gratuity. According to the petitioners, what has been paid to them is the gratuity computed in terms of provisions of the Payment of gratuity Act. Ext.P16 is an order passed by the Government in relation to another public sector undertaking, State Farming Corporation, relating to the same issue. According to the petitioners, the Company is prepared to pay the gratuity in terms of the Service Rules, but they have been interdicted by the Government. Ext.P17 is another representation pending before the Government relating to this aspect. 3. Though the representation Exts.P11, P13 and P17 are essentially communications addressed by the Company to the Government, seeking approval of the Government for implementation of Exts.P10 and P15 W.P.(C).16626/2008 3 Board resolutions, obviously, the petitioners are aggrieved by the delay in the same. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent. 5. In the result, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms. (i). First respondent shall consider and pass orders on Exts.P11 and P13 representations in the light of Exts.P10 and P15 Board resolutions within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (ii). First respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P17 representation, in relation to the issue taken up by the Company as regards the quantification of the gratuity payable to the petitioners and similarly situated persons. A decision in this W.P.(C).16626/2008 4 regard shall be taken taking note of Ext.P2 Service Rules and Ext.P16 Government Order. Such decision shall be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (iii). Government shall hear one among the petitioners and a representative of the Company, before a decision as aforementioned is taken. A copy of the writ petition shall also be placed by the petitioners before the Government along with a copy of the judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs