Ashok Bhushan, J.

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.

2. 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:

The petitioner joined the service of second respondent institute as a Proof Reader on 1.7.1969. Subsequently, he was promoted. By virtue of the relevant decision taken by the Board, the petitioner was entitled to continue till attaining the age of 58 years. While so, the Government passed an order dated 10.7.1984, whereby the retirement age was brought down to 55 years; on the basis of which, steps were taken to retire the petitioner at the age of 55 years on 31st July, 1999. This was challenged by the petitioner in O.P.No.17987/2000, which was finally decided in favour of the petitioner by judgment of this Court dated 11th October, 2000 holding that the petitioner was entitled to continue till attaining the age of 58 years. While so, the State Government vide G.O.(MS)29/2000/CAD. dated 8.9.2000, decided to implement the Pension Scheme in respect of the employees of the cultural institutions such as the second respondent/Kerala State Institute of Languages as well as certain other institutions. Rules were framed namely, 'Kerala Government Cultrual Institutions Employees Pension and Gratuity Rules 2000' (for short 'the Rules 2000') which came in force from 1st April 2000. As per the Rules, the age of superannuation of the employees in the cultural institutions shall be 55 years from January, 2000. A right was given to the employees to give option of retirement within one month from the date of enforcement of the Scheme to avail the benefit of pension and those employees who opt to continue in service till the age of 58 shall not be eligible for the pensionary benefits admissible under the Rules. Certain other rules were made with regard to gratuity, provident fund, etc. which shall be considered in detail later. Petitioner, after the enforcement of the Rules 2000, submitted his option to retire from service and he was allowed to retire from service on 31st October, 2000. Petitioner received a communication dated 27.2.2001 informing that pension has been sanctioned. The petitioner was, however, given an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards DCRG (Death Cum Retirement Gratuity) stating that he was not eligible to have gratuity as payable to the State Government employees. Petitioner accepted the said amount in protest and submitted a representation claiming gratuity at the rate of Government employees. It is also pertinent to note that by order dated 27.3.2003, a similarly situated person namely, Dr.M.R.Thampan, former Director of the Institute, was granted gratuity in par with Government employees. But the petitioner's claim was turned down as per Ext.P10 order, dated 29.2.2008, stating that since the appellant attained the age of 55 years on 31.7.1999 he would be considered as retired before 1.4.2000 and hence he is not entitled for DCRG as per Ext.P3 Rules. Challenging the said order, petitioner preferred writ petition and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

3. 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 th