The court affirmed the procedural integrity concerning gratuity and retirement benefits while upholding the ongoing inquiry under the KCS Act.

JUDGMENT SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, J The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958 assails the judgment dated 10.06.2022 passed in WP(C) No.2139/2020. The learned Single Judge while disposing of Writ Petition had passed the following directions:

(a) The competent Authority of the 2^nd respondent will immediately consider if they can hold on to the amount of Gratuity paid by the LIC, against the anticipated liability of the petitioner; and this shall be done after hearing him, thus leading to an appropriate order thereafter, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (b) As far as the Provident Fund and other retiral benefits of the petitioner are concerned, I am certainly of the view that the Bank will be justified in awaiting the final order in the enquiry under Section 68 of the 'KCS Act' being conducted by the competent Authority; but if this is not completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy this judgment, the petitioner will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; at that time, his entitlement can be considered, based on the Statutory Scheme.

2. So far as the first direction is concerned, the appellant has no grievance. As far as the question of payment of Provident Fund and other retiral benefits to the appellant is concerned, the learned Single Judge has directed that the Bank would be justified in awaiting the final order in the inquiry under Section 68 of the KCS Act (for short the Act) conducted by the competent authority. The Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that these proceedings have been challenged in Writ Petition No.40751/2024 whereby final order passed is stayed. The learned Single Judge has granted liberty to the appellant to approach this Court again if the proceedings under of the Act are not completed within a period of six months.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in disposing of the Writ Petition with the afore directions. No interference is called for. This Writ Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

4. From the statement of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is clear that the proceedings have already been culminated in imposing a liability. Therefore, this direction would have no effect. Admittedly, the proceedings under Section 68 of the Act is under challenge before this Court in the Writ Petition. In view of the aforesaid, nothing survives for adjudication in the matter.

So far as payment of Provident Fund and other retiral benefits are concerned, the appellant may take recourse to the legal remedies in accordance with law without prejudice to the contentions raised in this Writ Appeal. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of.

sd/-