IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19347 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.MURALIDHARAN, AGED 67 YEARS, SREE NIVAS, VELAVOOR, KOLIYAKOD, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJJU.S SRI.H.HARIKUMAR (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.S.E.B., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, POWER (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SPECIAL OFFICER, K.S.E.B., VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE (URBAN), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1,3 &4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 18541 OF 2009 & WPC NO. 18510 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C)s.19347, 18541 & 18510/2009 ....................... Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners in these cases were the employees of KSEB. They retired from service on various dates. They approached the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for gratuity in terms of the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act. 2. In the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C).18510/2009, by Ext.P1 series of orders dated 15.10.2005 their claims were allowed by the controlling authority and an appeal preferred was dismissed by Ext.P2 series of orders dated 22.12.2006. 3. In the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.19347/2009, the controlling authority had passed an order on 17.10.2006 and this was affirmed by the appellate authority as per Ext.P3 order dated 31.3.2009. It is admitted that as on date, the orders have become final. 4. In the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C).18541/2009, the W.P.(C).19347/09 & Connected Cases 2 controlling authority had passed an order on 2.11.2005 as per Ext.P1 and this was affirmed by the appellate authority as per ext.P2 dated 22.9.2006. Orders have become final as on dated and in all these cases, the Board has not challenged the orders passed by the authorities concerned. 5. A Division Bench of this Court KSEB v. Mohankumar (2008 (3) KLT 73) held that the employees of the Electricity Board are entitled to gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act. It seems that the Board has preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court. Notice has been issued on the Special Leave Petition and an order on such petition has been passed, points out the learned counsel for the Electricity Board. He also refers to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.439/2009 directing that the additional gratuity amount found due to the writ petitioner in the said case shall be released to him on him executing a bond along with two serving employees of the Board to refund the amount, if the decision of the apex Court is in favour of the Board. Amount was directed to be released W.P.(C).19347/09 & Connected Cases 3 to the writ petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment namely 6.4.2009. The Special Leave Petition pending before the Supreme Court is not yet disposed of. Learned counsel for the Board submits that similar direction may be issued in relation to the petitioners in the instant case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are retired employees of the Board and serving employees of the Board are not willing to stand as surety. They are willing to execute the bond that if the Supreme Court ultimately takes a decision holding that the employees of the Board are not entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, they shall refund the amount paid to them. 7. I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the serving employees of the Board may not be likely to stand as a surety for the retired employees and I also take note of the fact that in the instant case, the petitioners only claim the benefit of orders passed W.P.(C).19347/09 & Connected Cases 4 by the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Such orders have become final as on date. Petitioners, retired employees, cannot be asked to wait for the benefit, because according to the Board, the question of law has been agitated before the Supreme Court. If the Board was aggrieved by the orders passed by the authorities under the Act, Board should have independently challenged the said orders, before this Court. That has not been done. 8. Petitioners are entitled to interest as awarded by the controlling authority under the Act. But in circumstances where the issue regarding the eligibility is pending before the Supreme Court, payment of interest shall be deferred for a specific period. 9. In the result, writ petitions are disposed of directing the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in each of these cases to disburse to the petitioners the amount deposited by the Electricity Board with such authorities as gratuity payable to the petitioners, on production of a copy W.P.(C).19347/09 & Connected Cases 5 of this judgment. Board shall pay the interest as directed by the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act provided such orders passed by the authorities have become final. Board shall be permitted to six months' time from today to pay the interest and if within the said period, the issue as regards the eligibility of retired employees of the Board to receive gratuity under the Act is yet to be decided by the Supreme Court, then the Board shall pay interest as directed by the competent authority on condition that the petitioners execute a bond agreeing to refund the interest portion, if ultimately the issue is decided in favour of the Board, by the Honourable Supreme Court. Such bond shall be executed on a 50 rupees stamp paper. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs