IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 883 of 2009 -------------- -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5754/2005 Dated 06/06/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTAM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE & SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------ M.S. THOMAS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. XAVIER, OVERSEER (RETD.) LINE MAINTENANCE SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHALAKKUDY, RESIDING AT MANGALAKKADAN HOUSE, KARUKUTTY.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.G.D.PANICKER SMT.JEENA JOSEPH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W. A. No. 883 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J Respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition are the appellants. First respondent herein was the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner retired from the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board on 31.03.03. He was paid Gratuity only at the rate provided in the Kerala Service Rules. According to him, he is eligible to Gratuity as provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. So, claiming the balance amount, the writ petition was filed. Learned Single Judge following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in WA NO.1062 of 2003, allowed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment this writ appeal is filed. 2. According to the appellant KSEB, an identical matter is pending before the Apex court. Therefore the decision of this Court that the workmen of the KSEB are entitled to get Gratuity at the rate provided in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has not become final. WA No.883/09 -:2:- A similar matter was disposed of by this Court as per judgment dated 06.04.09 in WA No.439 of 2009. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: “3. We are in respectful agreement with the law laid down by this Court in K.S.E.B. v. Mohanakumar (supra) and therefore the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. But, it is ordered that if the appeal filed by the K.S.E.B is allowed by the Apex Court, the respondent herein(writ petitioner) will also be bound by the law declared by the Apex Court and he will be entitled to receive gratuity in accordance with that decision only. It is also ordered that if the appeal is not disposed of by the Apex Court, within four months from today, the additional gratuity amount found due to be respondent/writ petitioner shall be released to him immediately thereafter on his executing a bond along with two other serving employees of the K.S.E.B to refund the amount, if the decision of the the Apex Court is in favour of the K.S.E.B.” We order that the above direction will govern this case also. But, if for any reason the first respondent/writ petitioner cannot find two serving employees to stand as sureties for releasing the WA No.883/09 -:3:- additional gratuity amount, it shall be released to him after the disposal of the matter by the Apex Court with 10% interest from the date of his retirement. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE ttb