IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 34544 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. P.K.SUKUMARAN,S/O.PACHU, UNSKILLED ATTENDANT (RETD) AGED 59 YEARS, PARAVILAYIL VEEDU, VAKAKKAD, BONAMI P.O.PEERMADU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. P.M.VARGHESE S/O.MASILAMANI, UNSKILLED ATTENDAMT (RETD) AGED 59 YEARS, PUTHUPARAMBIL VEEDU, KOLAHALAMEDU, VAGAMON, PEERMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. M.SUBBAYA S/O.MUNIYANDI, AGED 59 YEARS, CHEDIKUZHIUPTHUVAL, KOLAHALAMEDU, VAGAMON, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. V.ARASU S/O. VELIPPAN, AGED 59 YEARS, CHEDIKUZHIPUTHUVAL, KOLAHALAMEDU, VAGAMON, PEERMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. K.S.JOY, S/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 59 YEARS, KARITHADATHIL VEEDU, KOLAHALAMEDU, VAGAMON, PEERMEDU, TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, VELLANIKKARA KAU P.O PIN-680656,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD LTD.,GOKULAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. WPC NO.34544/08 -2- 3. STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN, SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.34544/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 8.3.2000. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GA.F(2) 17841/2000 DT 5.9.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 6.2.2008 IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE RESPONDENTS NOS.1,2 AND 3. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 26.7.2008 SENT AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PETITIOENRS AND OTHER 12 RETIRED EMPLOYEES TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF the REPLY NO.GA/L1/24941/2008 DT 23.9.2008 OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.9.2008 SENT ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENTBY THEIR LAWYERS TO THE LEGALNOTICE OF THE PETITIONERS. EXTS. OF R2 EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE OFFICERS OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND KLD BOARD HELD IN THE CHAMBER OF THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE. EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THAT LETTER DT 1.1.2009 ISSUED BY THE KLD BOARD TO THE REGISTRAR OF KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34544 OF 2008 (K) ===================== Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners were erstwhile employees of Kerala Live Stock Development Board at the Base Farm at Kolahalamedu, Vagamon. Pursuant to GO(MS) No.65/2000/RD dated 8.3.2000, 84 hectares of land consisting of Base Farm and ancillary facilities were transferred to the Kerala Agricultural University, which took over the same from 10/8/2000. Along with the establishment 42 farm workers were also brought under the service of the University w.e.f. 11/8/2000 and these employees availing of the option given to them opted to continue under the University. On attaining the age of superannuation, employees have retired during 2007-08. Their gratuity has not been paid despite demands. It is thereupon the writ petition is filed. 2. The Live Stock Development Board in the counter affidavit filed would contend that responsibility is that of the University. University has not filed a counter affidavit. Counsel points out that the responsibility to pay is only for the period subsequent to the period employees were taken over by the WPC 34544/08 :2 : University. 3. Although this contention is now raised before me, counsel for the petitioner pointed out a judgment rendered by this Court on 8th of June, 2009 in WP(C) No.17440/08, where dealing with the claims raised by persons similar to that of petitioners, this Court had directed the University to pay the entire gratuity amount due. It is also pointed out, without being contradicted, that this liability has been discharged by the University. If that be so, I see no reason to decline the relief that is sought for in the writ petition. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the University shall pay the gratuity that is due to the petitioners herein. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp