WP(C) No. 3417 of 2012 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- K SURENDRA MOHAN
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. It is the case of the petitioners that a DivisionBench of this Court has in WA.No.1062/2003 held that employees of the first respondent are entitled to gratuity asper the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. As per the Boardorder, produced as Ext.P3 in WP(C).No.3417/2012, the…
Judgment
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).Nos.3417 & 4355 of 2012.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =Dated this the 11th June, 2012.J U D G M E N TIdentical questions arise for consideration in these two writ petitions. Therefore, they are disposed of together.
The petitioner in WP(C).No.3417/2012 is a retired employee of the first respondent. He retired from service on 30.4.2006 as a Senior Confidential Assistant. He has been paid only an amount of ` 2,80,000/- as gratuity. He is entitled to an amount of ` 3,50,000/- under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Consequent to the revision of pay and pension, it is complained that his pension alone was revised. His DCRG was not revised. Therefore, he claims the balance gratuity due to him.
The petitioner in WP(C).No.4355/2012 has retired as a Sweeper from the service of the first respondent on31.5.2002. She was paid an amount of ` 2,15,622/- as WP(C).Nos.3417 & 4355/2012.2DCRG. According to the petitioner, the balance amount of gratuity has still not been paid. The petitioner therefore claims payment of the balance gratuity as well as the interest.
It is the case of the petitioners that a DivisionBench of this Court has in WA.No.1062/2003 held that employees of the first respondent are entitled to gratuity asper the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. As per the Boardorder, produced as Ext.P3 in WP(C).No.3417/2012, the first respondent has also taken a decision to make payment of gratuity to its employees. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners are entitled to payment of gratuity.
I have also heard Adv.K.S.Anil, who appears for the first respondent Board.
In view of the Board order Ext.P3 referred to above, the petitioners are entitled to claim the full amount of gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act. 7. For the above reasons, these writ petitions are WP(C).Nos.3417 & 4355/2012.3allowed, directing the first respondent Board to pay the balance amount of gratuity due to the petitioners consequent to the revision of their salary, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from today. The interest payable on the balance amount of gratuity calculated upto the date of deposit of the principal amount shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of six months of the date of deposit of the principal amount. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge)Kvs/-
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.