IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 29030 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: P.PARAMESWARAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALANGATT ILLOM, P.O.KANNIPARAMBA, VIA MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE KALIKAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.M.40, P.O.KALIKAVU, MALAPPURAM. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.S.ABDUL SALAMFOR R1 TO R3 ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC 29030/2010 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DT. 9.6.10 SENT BY THE EPTITIONER TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT EXT. P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DT. 6.7.10 SENT BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT EXT. P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DT. 6.7.10 SENT BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a) COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DT. 6.9.06 SENT BY THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA ALONG WITH THE CHEQUE FOR RS.3,50,000/- /TRUE COPY/ P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.29030 of 2010 C ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The issue raised in the instant writ petition is covered against the petitioner by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nedupuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. K.Rugmini (2011 (3) KLT 134). In that case, the Division Bench of this Court held that where the amount payable under the Group Gratuity Life Assurance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India is only `.3.5 lakhs, the Society is liable to pay only that much amount by way of gratuity to employees like the petitioner. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the amount of gratuity cannot be restricted to `.3.5 lakhs and that he should get an enhanced amount of gratuity. The petitioner has, however, not been able to establish his claim that he was entitled to receive anything in excess of `.3.5 lakhs, which was already paid to him. I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (P.N.Ravindran, Judge) tkv