JUDGMENT

The petitioners say that they retired from the services of the

1st respondent – Society but had not been paid their full eligible gratuity until now. They, however, concede that they have been paid Rs.10 Lakhs each and assert that, going by the Bye-laws/Regulations, larger amounts are due.

2. The afore claims of the petitioners, as argued by their learned counsel – Sri.Philip Mathew, were answered by Sri.M.Sasindran – learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent - Society, asserting that his client has disbursed the entire amounts they received from the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), under a Group Gratuity Scheme; and that, therefore, nothing more is eligible to the petitioners. He thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

3. Sri.P.V.Varghese – learned Standing Counsel for the LIC, affirmed that his client has only paid Rs.10 Lakhs to the Society in the account of each of the petitioners and that nothing more is payable.

4. When I consider and evaluate the afore rival positions, it is evident that the real question is whether the petitioners are entitled to be paid higher gratuity than what the Bank says is eligible to them under the Group Gratuity Scheme