H.L. Dattu, C.J.

Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ appeals, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.

(2). The first case that was filed before this Court was O.P.674/2002. In that case, the petitioner was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. He retired from service as Chief Personnel Officer and Head of Personnel Department on 30th September, 2001. His claim was payment of gratuity at the rates provided under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as Act of 1972). According to the petitioner, he was eligible to receive 3.5 lakhs under the provisions of the Gratuity Act. The Kerala State Electricity Board, relying upon Rule 68 of Part III of Kerala Service Rules, had paid only a sum of Rs.2.8 lakhs and thereby his request for payment of

3.5 lakhs under Act of 1972 was rejected by the respondents. That was how the petitioner was before this Court seeking appropriate directions to the Kerala State Electricity Board for payment of gratuity at the rates provided under the provisions of Act of 1972.

(3). Detailed objections were filed by the Board resisting the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition. However, at the time of hearing the petitions for disposal, primarily two contentions were canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the Board before the learned Single Judge. Firstly, in view of Sec. 2 (e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the employee of the Corporation is none other than an employee of the State Government. Therefore, the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be made applicable to him. Secondly, since the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules had received pension package and the gratuity, he is not entitled for payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

(4). The learned Single Judge, has relied upon the dicta of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Dharam Prakash Sharma and another [(1998) 7 SCC 221] wherein it is stated, "We have examined carefully the provisions of the Pension Rules as well as the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Payment of Gratuity Act being a special provision for payment of gratuity unless there is any provision therein which excludes its applicability to an employee who is otherwise governed by the provision of the Pension Rules it is not possible for us to hold that the respondent is not entitled to the gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. .... ... ... The mere fact that the gratuity is provided for under the Pension Rules will not disentitle him to get the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. In view of the overriding provisions contained in Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the provision for gratuity under Pension Rules will have no effect. .... .... ..... ..... In the aforesaid premises we are of the considered opinion that the employees of the MCD would be entitled to the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act notwithstanding the fact that the provisions of Pension Rules have been made applicable to them for the purpose of determining the pension. Needless to mention that the employees cannot claim gratuity available under Pension Rules."

(5). Following the dicta of the Apex Court, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has declared that Exts. P3 and P5 will not in any way affect the right of the petitioner to get the gratuity under the provisions of Act of 1972 and further has directed the Board to to pay the balance amount of gratuity due to the petitioner after deducting the gratuity already paid under Rule 68 of Part III of the KSR. Aggrieved by the orders so passed by the learned Single Judge, the Board is before us in this appeal.

(6). The learned Single Judge following the decision in O.P.No.674 of 2002 has disposed of other writ petitions. The Board, aggr