Kerala High Court
P. Hemalatha vs General Manager (Administration) on 7 August, 2025
WA NO.347/2025 1
2025:KER:58936
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 347 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.32080/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
P.HEMALATHA
AGED 59 YEARS
W/O.V.G.SUDHAKARAN, 38/547 A, 039KRIPA 039
KARIYATTUVAYAL, WEST HILL (PO),
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673005
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SANJITH
SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH
SMT.HRISHIKA MARIYA JOSE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION)
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND
MARKETING) CORPORATION LIMITED,
039BEVCO TOWER039 VIKAS BHAVAN, PALAYAM (PO),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695033
2 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES(MANUFACTURING AND
MARKETING)CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, SASTHAMANGALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695010.
3 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
WA NO.347/2025 2
2025:KER:58936
JEEVAN PRAKASH LIC BUILDING, P.B.NO.1001, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN-695004.
4 THE MANAGER
P G SERVICE DEPARTMENT, LIC DIVISINAL OFFICE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN-673001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC, R1 & R2
SRI.BIJO FRANCIS, R3 & R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.06.2025, THE COURT ON 07.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO.347/2025 3
2025:KER:58936
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 19.08.2024 in W.P.(C) No.32080 of 2018 of the learned Single Judge. Appellant was the petitioner and respondents were the respondents therein.
2. Appellant, who is a retired employee of the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') holds a grievance that she had not received the full gratuity to which she was entitled to purportedly for the reason that a limit has been prescribed. Upon her retirement from service on 31.05.2017, she had been only paid an amount of Rs.9,98,621/- towards gratuity, and the balance gratuity is still due and outstanding to her. Alleging wrongful withholding of such balance amounts that had already been paid by the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) to the Corporation and seeking realisation of the same with interest, she had filed the W.P.(C) seeking the following reliefs:
(i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate, writ, order or direction directing the 1 st and 2nd WA NO.347/2025 4 2025:KER:58936 respondents to pay the balance gratuity amount due to the petitioner forthwith ;
(ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% for the balance amount due to the petitioner as gratuity from the date on which the balance gratuity is paid by the LIC to the 1st and 2nd respondents ;
(iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P7 representation after hearing the petitioner ;
(iv) issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case."
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C) inter alia, holding that the enhancement as claimed by the appellant would be applicable only pursuant to Exhibits R1(a) and R1(b) which are respectively a notification and an office memorandum issued by the Government of India. Since the appellant had retired before the issuance of Exhibits R1(a) and R1(b), it was held that she is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed.
4. Heard Sri.R.Sanjith, Advocate for the appellant, Sri.Naveen T., Advocate for the 1st and 2nd respondents, Sri.Bijo Francis, Advocate for the 3rd and 4th respondents.
WA NO.347/2025 5
2025:KER:58936
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the W.P.(C) had been erroneously dismissed, on a wrong interpretation of law and the appellant is entitled to claim the benefit of the dictum laid down in Chandrasekharan Nair G. and others v. Kerala State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd and others [2017 (4) KLT 276]. It is further contended that Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act enables an employee to opt for better terms of gratuity, and the employees are entitled to enhanced gratuity upon exercise of such option. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down by this Court in Retnavalli v. Ambalapadu Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. [2005 (3) KLT 370], Nedupuzha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. K.Rugmani and others [2011 (3) KLT 134], and it is contended that payment of gratuity is a right of the appellant and not a bounty to be paid by the respondents. It is contended that though the LIC had paid the entire amount due to the appellant to the Corporation at the time of her retirement, she had been paid only Rs.9,98,621/-, and the remaining amount is retained by the 2nd respondent without any authority. It is thus contended that the appellant is entitled to the balance amount with interest from the date of receipt of the amount by respondent No.1 Corporation from WA NO.347/2025 6 2025:KER:58936 the 3rd respondent.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation (respondent Nos.1 and 2), submitted that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference and that the same had been validly rendered. It is submitted that the Corporation had paid the amount released by the LIC, together with the balance amount required to pay the maximum gratuity of Rs.10 lakhs to which the appellant is eligible. She has no entitlement or eligibility for anything more than what has already been paid to her and received by her. It is submitted that the appellant had retired from the services of the Corporation on 31.05.2017 as an Assistant Manager and she is entitled to a gratuity equal to one month's salary for each year of completed service, subject to the maximum provided in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which is Rs.10,00,000/-. Appellant had been paid an amount of Rs.9,98,621/-, being the amount of gratuity due to her, after deducting the amount of Rs.1,379/-, which was the liability amount. The contention that the ceiling limit for gratuity had been enhanced to Rs.20,00,000/- with effect from 01.01.2016 and hence the appellant is entitled to the revised gratuity amount, is legally unsustainable. The purported claim of the appellant for a balance WA NO.347/2025 7 2025:KER:58936 amount of Rs.10,01,379/- is false. It is submitted that as per Exhibit P7, the appellant is claiming the gratuity ceiling amount of Rs.20,00,000/-, which applies only to Central Government employees with effect from 01.01.2016 vide a notification dated 24.05.2010. The Corporation, being a Government-owned company, is governed by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the enhancement of the gratuity limit of Rs.20,00,000/- was ordered as per Exhibit R1(a) notification dated 29.03.2018. The Government had thereafter issued Exhibit R1(b) office memorandum dated 11.04.2018 prescribing 29.03.2018 as the date on which the amendment introduced to the Act came into force. The Board of Directors of the Corporation had, in its meeting held on 04.05.2018 decided to enhance the gratuity limit to be applicable to the employees of the Corporation who retire on or after 29.03.2018. Since the appellant retired from service on 31.05.2017, i.e. before the amendment came into effect, she is only eligible for a maximum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- which had already been paid to her. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Government Pensioners Association and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1986 SC 1907], and it is WA NO.347/2025 8 2025:KER:58936 contended that no retrospectivity, as contended by the appellant, is envisaged even under the Scheme or under the arrangement with the LIC.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd and 4th respondents viz., the LIC submitted that the dispute is essentially between the appellant and respondents 1 and 2 and that LIC had no role whatsoever in the same. It is admitted that the Corporation had entered into a Group Gratuity Cash Accumulation Scheme with the LIC, Thiruvananthapuram and that the Scheme was renewed for an annual renewal on 28.01.2017 with a ceiling of Rs.10,00,000/-. Pointing to the exhibits produced, it is submitted that the LIC had paid Rs.10,00,000/- on 22.08.2017 to the master policy holder in the Corporation as per the intimation received from them. Though the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act had been enhanced from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- as per notification dated 29.03.2018, the appellant would not be entitled to claim Rs.20,00,000/- since she had retired before the said date. Thus, the appellant cannot claim any amount from the LIC since due payment has been effected to the Master Policy Holder, namely the 1st respondent Corporation, to the tune of WA NO.347/2025 9 2025:KER:58936 Rs.10,00,000/- in full conformity with the ceiling. The learned counsel for the LIC thus terms the Writ Appeal as unsustainable and fit to be dismissed.
8. We have heard the parties in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. The question to be considered is whether the learned Judge erred in holding that the appellant is not entitled to any amounts over and above what she has already received towards gratuity. Admittedly, appellant retired from service on 31.05.2017 and has already received an amount of Rs.9,98,621/- towards gratuity. It is vide Ext.R1(a) notification dated 29.03.2018, that the amount of gratuity payable to a Central Government employee was fixed as not to exceed Rs.20 Lakhs. This was followed by Exhibit R1(b) announcing the applicability of the increase to Rs.20 Lakhs from 29.03.2018 onwards to public enterprises like the respondent Corporation, which is a Government-owned company. The learned Single Judge has duly noted that the appellant had retired before the issuance of Exhibits R1(a) and R1(b), and hence her entitlement to Rs.20,00,000/- enhancement had not crystallised before her retirement. The said conclusion arrived at cannot be termed as erroneous in the facts and circumstances of the case. As regards the WA NO.347/2025 10 2025:KER:58936 contention of the appellant that the LIC had already paid the full amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the Corporation, and that she was given only an amount of Rs.9,98,621/- by the 1 st respondent and the remaining amount is retained by respondent No.2 without any authority, the same cannot be countenanced given the specific statement by the LIC that only Rs.10,00,000/- had been paid to the Corporation per the policy and the same has been substantiated by Exhibits R3 (c) and R3(d) too, which specifically evidence that a cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- in respect of the appellant has been given to the Corporation by the LIC. Thus, the contention regarding wrongful withholding of amounts by the Corporation lacks legal substantiation. The reliance placed on Chandrasekharan Nair's case (supra) does not assist the contentions of the appellant. A Full Bench of this Court had, in the said case, affirmed the liability of the employer to pay gratuity to an employee under Section 4(2) of the Central Act at the rate specified and had further held that the said provision does not affect the right of the employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer under Section 4(5) of the Central Act and it had been further clarified therein that the employee need not necessarily be a WA NO.347/2025 11 2025:KER:58936 co-nominee party to the award or agreement or contract which could be entered into by anyone duly authorized by him. This dictum in Chandrasekharan Nair (supra) cannot be pressed into service by the appellant to buttress her contention for entitlement to higher gratuity based on a notification/O.M. that came into force after her date of retirement. Similarly, the contentions put forth based on the dictum in Nedupuzha Service Cooperative Bank (supra) are also of no avail to the appellant since the said case can only be a precedent for the proposition that the employer, being a trustee, cannot claim the benefit of the Group Gratuity Policy taken by them for the benefit of the employees and being a trustee, which arranged with the LIC by taking the policy and making payment of premium to provide gratuity and other benefits to its employees. The finding rendered therein that all the benefits under the policy are to the account of the employees, and nothing is retained by the employer, which, by making the payment of premium, discharges its annual liability for gratuity to the employees covered under the Scheme, does not apply to the facts of the appellant's case in so far even as per the LIC, nothing over Rs.10 lakhs had been paid by them to the Corporation. A subsequent notification or amendment to the gratuity WA NO.347/2025 12 2025:KER:58936 arrangement, even if beneficial, cannot be applied retroactively to increase the gratuity of those who have already retired, especially when the gratuity is based on a Group Gratuity Scheme. The learned Single Judge had correctly declined the prayers sought in the W.P.(C) and we find no reason to interfere with the said finding.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE csl