IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 2392 of 2006(E) ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER Dated 18/10/2006 IN R.P.NO. 884/2006 IN W.P.(C) NO. 8560/2006 .................... APPELLANT/ REVIEW PETITIONER: ------------------ CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (WRONGLY SHOWN AS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN IN THE REVIEW PETITION AND WRIT PETITION). BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. PONNAMMA, W/O.P.N. VALSAN, H.NO.2032, PALLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, LALAN ROAD, KOCHI-2. 2. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN FOR R1 SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------- W.A.No.2392 OF 2006 -------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The 2nd respondent in the writ petition is the appellant. The 1st respondent was the writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The writ petitioner's husband retired from Government service on 28.2.1997. Pay revision for Government employees was introduced with effect from 1.3.1997. The amount of gratuity payable to persons retired from 1.3.1997 was enhanced. A Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Geroge [2003(3)KLT 387] held that an employee retiring on 31.12.1995 will be a pensioner only with effect from 1.1.1996. Relying on the said decision, the writ petitioner claimed the payment of gratuity at the revised rate. When there was no positive response to that demand, she approached this Court by filing the writ petition. The writ petition was allowed by the W.A.No.2392/2006 2 learned Single Judge relying on the aforementioned judgment of the Division Bench. The Cochin Corporation, which was the 2nd respondent in that writ petition, filed R.P.No.884/2006 seeking review of that judgment. The Review Petition was also disposed of directing payment of revised gratuity. Aggrieved by the judgment and the order in the Review Petition, the Corporation preferred this Writ Appeal. 3. The decision of this Court in Union of India v. George has been reversed by the Apex Court by the judgment in Civil Appeal No.2907/2005 and connected cases on 22.2.2007. So, the decision in Union of India v. George is no longer a binding precedent. So, the claim of the writ petitioner has to be examined with respect to the relevant Government Order. Ext.P4 is the Government Order introducing pay revision. The relevant portion dealing with gratuity reads as follows: “Gratuity: Gratuity will be paid @ ½ months basic pay last drawn for every completed year of service, subject to a maximum of 16 ½ times of basic pay, as at present. Dearness Allowance on the date of retirement will also W.A.No.2392/2006 3 be reckoned. Those who retired from 01.03.1997 will also be paid pension/gratuity at the enhanced rates from the date of their retirement subject to the general principles in the Government Order dated 03.09.1991.” 4. Going by the above provision, those who retired from service on 1.3.1997 alone are eligible to get gratuity at the revised rate. The writ petitioner's husband retired from service on 28.2.1997. Therefore, he is ineligible to get gratuity at the revised rate as per Ext.P4. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the direction of the learned Single Judge to pay gratuity at the revised rate to the 1st respondent/writ petitioner is vacated. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps