ABDULLA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 19th December, 2012 in Writ Petition 4590 of 2009 by which judgment the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for the disbursement of gratuity to the petitioner as paid to the State Government employees has been dismissed. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition, petitioner preferred this Writ Appeal. Brief facts giving rise to this Writ Appeal are as follows:

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal contended that Clause 5 of the Rules 2000 clearly contemplated a cut off date for payment of DCRG i.e., those who retired till 31st March 2000 and those who retires from service from April 2000. He submits that the petitioner having retired on 31st October, 2000 is clearly entitled for gratuity as payable to the State Government employees and therefore the payment of an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was not appropriate. The petitioner has been paid pension, which fact is not disputed. Hence, there was no occasion to deny the gratuity at the rate admissible to the State Government employees. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge did not correctly appreciate the Rules 2000, especially, Clauses 5 and 6 while dismissing the Writ Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the second respondent refuting the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has rightly been denied the gratuity as payable to the State Government employees, since his retirement is to be deemed to have taken place on the date when he attained the age of superannuation i.e., on 31st July 1999. He submits that the deeming Clause with regard to retirement has to be read from Clause 6 of the Scheme and hence since the petitioner shall be deemed to have retired prior to 31st March, 2000 he is not entitled for gratuity as payable to Government employees. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. S.I.D.C. Ltd. & Anr. v. R. Varaprasad & Ors., 2003 11 SCC 572).