IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 20782 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- V.SANATHANAN PILLAI,S/O.VELU PILLAI. SANATHANA MANDIRAM,PERUVELIKKARA, PERUVELIKKARA P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN SRI.A.D.SHAJAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVT.CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, O/O.THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.SOCIETY KOLLAM. 3. SASTHAMCOTTA PCARD BANK LTD., NO.Q.373.SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DIST.REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.20782/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3/7/2009 IN WP(C)NO.18669/09 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P2 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION LETTER DATED 17/6/2008 SENT BY LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA TO THE SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/6/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.20782 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 28th October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retiree from the service of the third respondent society. After retirement the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs towards the gratuity payable under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Admittedly, the amount to which the petitioner is entitled in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 exceeds Rs.3.5 lakhs. Precisely the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.5,75,926/- . The question to be decided is whether the petitioner is entitled to get an amount which is in excess of Rs.3.5 lakhs in terms of the provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. This question was considered by this Court in the decision in Ratnavally v. Ambalapadu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2005 (3) KLT 320). Therefore, in the light of the said decision the third respondent cannot contend that the petitioner is not entitled to an amount over and above Rs.3.5 lakhs in terms of the provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The next question is who should be made liable to pay the differential amount i.e., to effect payment over and above Rs.3.5 lakhs. I have decided a batch of writ petitions by a common judgment in W.P. (C)No.5351 of 2010 and connected cases whereby it was held that the WP(C).No.20782/2010 2 employer is liable to effect the payment. However, in this case, the entire amount claimed by the petitioner was received from the Life Insurance Corporation of India by the third respondent. There is no dispute with respect to the entitlement of the petitioner for the said amount under the Payment of Gratuity Act. In the said circumstances, there is no justification or reason for the third respondent to retain the balance amount. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second and third respondents to pay the balance amount i.e. Rs.2,25,926/- to the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS