C RENUKA Vs. KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the 20 petitioners in W.P.(C).No. 2241/2012, except 11th, 15th, 18th and 20th petitioners, have retried from the service of the 3rd respondent -Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI), which comes under the 1st respondent -Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment (KSCSTE). The petitioners had entered the service of the above said 3rd respondent, KFRI as Scientists and they claimed to have distinguished service and accomplishments in their scientific career to their credit. The 1st respondent -Council is an autonomous body constituted at the initiative of the respondent State Government and it has been registered as a society under the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and  Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The formation of the said new society was envisaged by the Government in terms of G.O (P) No.76/2002/S&TD dated 6.11.2002. After the registration of the Council as a society under the provisions of the aforementioned Societies Registration Act, the 1st respondent has also formulated their separate rules for regulating the service conditions and other allied matters, which according to the pleadings of the official respondents, has been made effective from 19.6.2003. Six research institutions, viz., (1) Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI), (2) Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS), (3) Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute (TBGRI), (4) Centre for Water Recourses Development and Management (CWRDM), (5) National Transportation, Planning and Research Centre (NATPAC) and (6) Kerala School of Mathematics (KSM), have been brought under umbrella of the 1st respondent -Council. Prior to the formation of the 1st respondent -Council, these six individual institutions were functioning without coming under the ambit of a single umbrella organization and they had their own rules. The terms and conditions of payment of gratuity and retiral benefits to the employees of the 3rd respondent -KFRI, prior to the formation of the 1st respondent - Council, were in terms of Exts.P1 and P2. After the formation of the 1st respondent -Council, conditions of service including payment of gratuity and other benefits have been regulated in terms of the aforementioned service rules framed for the functioning of the 1st  respondent -Council, which came into force on 19.6.2003. Ext.P3 is the relevant extract of those rules insofar as it regulates the payment of gratuity. Rule 14 of Section 2 of Part 1 of those rules which are extracted in Ext.P3, reads as follows:

(2.) THOUGH Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (Central Act 39 of 1972) envisages a maximum limit of Rs. 10 lakhs (with effect from 24.5.2010) for payment of gratuity, the rules in the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent, as evidenced by Ext.P3, do not place any ceiling limit on the maximum gratuity payable and the gratuity is computable purely in terms of the formula mentioned in Note. (ii) appended under Rule 14.1 of the above said Ext.P3 rules. It is also common ground that even prior to the formation of the 1st respondent -Council, the research institutes like the 3rd respondent -KFRI, have been following the same formula for payment of gratuity in terms of Exts.P1 and P2, wherein also there was no maximum ceiling limit for payment of gratuity amount.

(3.) IT is indisputable that all through out, till the issuance of the impugned Ext.P8 proceedings dated 20.9.2011, gratuity has been paid in terms of the above said methodology adopted by the respondent institutions concerned, without placing any ceiling limit for payment of gratuity.