IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 RP.No. 667 of 2007(T) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26622/2006 Dated 23/03/2007 .................... PETITIONER - IST RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRL. AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GEORGE VARGHESE SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,KSCOARDBANK L RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THRIVIKRAMAN NAIR, S/O.K.GOVINDAN NAIR, PRAYAG SNEHAPURI KAIMANA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. (RTD REGIONAL MANAGER, GENERAL ADMN. DEPT STATE ARD BANK). 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON FOR R2 SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R1 SRI.V.VIJULAL FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ R.P.NO.667 OF 2007 IN W.P.(C)No. 26622 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008 ORDER After considering Annexures produced along with the Review Petition as well as the Annexures produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner in the writ petition, I am not satisfied with the reasons stated in the Review Petition, for reviewing my judgment. Admittedly, after the policy has been issued there was also no change in the conditions of the policy or the amount of premium payable. As per that policy, on payment of the premium agreed upon, the LIC takes over the liability of the bank to pay the gratuity to each employee and what is payable is the maturity value as per the policy. The policy has also not been amended to modify the maturity value. When the petitioner retired, as is evidenced by Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) produced along with the counter affidavit of the petitioner in the writ petition, it is clear that the bank has issued a cheque for Rs.5,10,713/- which was the maturity value payable as per the policy to the petitioner in the writ petition. It is pursuant to the request made by the bank themselves that the LIC has now limited the gratuity due to the petitioner to Rs.3,50,000/-. That is clearly a violation of the policy conditions. Without the knowledge of the employees, the bank had no business to unilaterally request LIC to restrict the gratuity against the policy conditions, in so far as in the decision of Retnavally V. Ambalappadu Service Co-operative Society [2005(3) KLT 320], I have specifically held that the employees are the beneficiaries of a trust in accordance with which only the policy has been issued. I have also held that even if the maturity value is higher than the maximum amount of gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, it is the maturity value that is payable and not the maximum as per the Act. In any event the Society is not in any way prejudiced in so far they are not paying any additional premium to the LIC. In fact the premium paid is equal to the gratuity payable to each employee every month and nothing more. Therefore as I have held in Retnavally's case (Supra) the employee should not be deprived of the additional amount as maturity value as per the policy and the Society should not make an unmerited profit out of the policy which is intended for payment of gratuity to the employees of the Society. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Review Petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd