IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 30436 of 2009(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.G.SUBRAHMANIAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, TC 34/414-PALLIVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR DT. CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, NEDUMPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.555, NEDUMPUZHA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. NEDUPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.555, NEDUPUZHA, THRISSUR. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, JEEVAN PRAKASH, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR. 4. REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV.SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.D.M.NOWFAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO. 30436/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13/10/2009. P2 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 25/1999 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT REGISTRAR DATED 22/06/1999. P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/08/2009. P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 10/10/2009. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16/10/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF THE GGPE COST AND BENEFIT SCHEDULE MAINTAINED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01/04/2008. R1(B) COPY OF THE INTIMATION FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/05/2008. R2(A) COPY OF THE MASTER POLICY GGI.NO.44323. R2(B) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE COST AND BENEFIT SCHEDULE. R2(C) COPY OF THE DISCHARGE RECEIPT DATED 30/05/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.30436 of 2009 ---------------------------- Dated 28th October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retiree from the service of the first respondent society. After retirement the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs towards the gratuity payable under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Admittedly, the amount to which the petitioner is entitled in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 exceeds Rs.3.5 lakhs. Precisely the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.4,85,945/- . The question to be decided is whether the petitioner is entitled to get an amount which is in excess of Rs.3.5 lakhs in terms of the provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. This question was considered by this Court in the decision in Ratnavally v. Ambalapadu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2005 (3) KLT 320). Therefore, in the light of the said decision the first respondent cannot contend that the petitioner is not entitled to an amount over and above Rs.3.5 lakhs in terms of the provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The next question is who should be made liable to pay the differential amount i.e., to effect payment over and above Rs.3.5 lakhs. I have decided a batch of writ petitions by a common judgment in W.P. (C)No.5351 of 2010 and connected cases whereby it was held that the WP(C).No.30436/2009 2 employer is liable to effect the payment. However, in this case, an amount of Rs.3,52,012/- was received from the Life Insurance Corporation of India by the first respondent. There is no dispute with respect to the entitlement of the petitioner for the said amount under the Payment of Gratuity Act. In the said circumstances, there is no justification or reason for the first respondent to retain the balance amount. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to pay the balance amount i.e. Rs.1,35,406/- to the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the first respondent to initiate appropriate action, in accordance with law and also in accordance with the agreement executed between the first respondent society and the Life Insurance Corporation of India, in case the first respondent got a case that the Life Insurance Corporation is to effect repayment of the amount disbursed to the petitioner over and above the amount already released by the Life Insurance Corporation of India and disbursed to the petitioner. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS