HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.2524 of 2005 JUDGMENT: ((Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is directed by the appellant-MARKFED against the order dated 13.07.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing W.P.No.7362 of 1999 filed by the 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation retired from service on 31.12.1997. On his retirement, while paying the retiral benefits, the law as applicable as to the payment of gratuity as on that day was not applied and he was paid the gratuity of Rs.1,00,000/- only as per the old Act. Under the Amendment Act (No.11 of 1998), the amount of gratuity was enhanced from ‘one lakh’ to ‘three lakh and fifty thousand’ with effect from 24.09.1997. The case of the writ petitioner is that since he retired from service on 31.12.1997, the Amendment Act is applicable to him and he is entitled for gratuity of Rs.3.50 lakhs. Therefore, he filed the writ petition seeking a Mandamus declaring that the payment of gratuity (Amendment) Act 1998 is applicable to him and also the proceeding dated 18.02.1999 issued by the appellant-MARKFED as illegal and arbitrary and consequently sought for a direction to the appellant herein to pay the difference of gratuity in accordance with the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act as amended by Act No.11 of 1998 to him. By order dated 13.07.2005, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the present writ petition directing the appellant- MARKFED to calculate and pay the gratuity to the writ petitioner as per Section 4 (3) of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 1998, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy that order, with interest at 6% per annum on the gratuity amount to which he is entitled to from the date it became payable till the date of payment as per Section 7 (3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and in view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in H.Ganga Hanume Gouda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Limited (2003 (4) SCC 40). Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that as per the service regulations under Clause 56.1.0, the gratuity shall be payable to an employee as per the A.P. Payment of Gratuity Rules 1972 and that the appellant-MARKFED adopted the provisions of the said Amendment Act and as per the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Markfed dated 28.12.2002 with effect from 04.06.2002 and also as per the advise of the Government in tune with the G.O.Ms.No.157, Finance and Planning (FW.Pen.I) Department, dated 16.09.1999. He further contended that the learned Single Judge erred in following the judgment passed in W.P.No.30307 of 1997, in which case, the Board of Directors resolved to apply the provisions of the Ordinance with effect from 24.09.1997, whereas in the instant case, there is no such resolution passed by the Board of Directors to pay gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is quite legal and valid and in that view of the matter, no interference is called for. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and other material available on record, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge rightly held that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner is entitled for payment of gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 1998. Further, the learned Judge rightly held that when it is not the case of the appellant- MARKFED that they are supposed to pay the gratuity as is applicable to the Government employees, adopting the provisions of the Amendment Act with effect from 04.06.2002 does not arise. The employees of the appellant are governed by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Rules made thereunder by the State Government, but that itself does not mean that they can adopt the provisions of the Amendment Act from a date which is convenient to them. The learned Single Judge also placed reliance on the judgment of another learned Single Judge of this Court passed in W.P.No.30307 of 1997 dated 06.03.1998, wherein it is held that once the ordinance came into force with effect from 24.09.1997, a liability is passed on to the respondent-corporation to pay gratuity interlocutory terms of the Ordinance. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered view that the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge of this Court is quite legal and justified and, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed upholding the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 14.09.2011 Gsn.