Employees are entitled to the preferred gratuity options as per established Full Bench judgments, and employers must comply with the provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

Nagaresh, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30637/2022 is the appellant. The writ petition was filed seeking to direct the respondents to disburse balance gratuity amounting to ₹20,49,960/- with 8% interest within a time frame.

2. The appellant retired from service of the 1^st respondent-Malappuram District Co-operative Bank on 30.04.2022 after rendering 38 years of service. The respondents paid ₹20 lakhs to the appellant towards Gratuity. In the writ petition, the appellant contended that a further amount of ₹20,49,960/- is remaining to the credit of the appellant in the Group Gratuity Insurance Scheme. The petitioner is entitled to receive the said amount. The claim of the appellant for payment of the balance amount was rejected as per Ext.P8 order of the 2^nd respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

3. The 1^st respondent-Bank resisted the writ petition. The 1^st respondent-Bank submitted that they have paid the Gratuity amount as per the general directions given by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. As a ceiling is prescribed for payment of Gratuity, the appellant is entitled to only ₹20 lakhs as Gratuity.

4. As per order dated 02.11.2010 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, no employee can claim more than what is eligible under the Payment of Gratuity Act towards Gratuity. There are no better terms or Scheme available to the appellant. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed, contended the 1^st respondent.

5. After hearing the writ petition, a learned Single Judge of this Court noted that while issuing Ext.P8 rejection order, the respondents did not refer to the Full Bench judgment of this Court. The respondents proceeded on the assumption that they are bound by the directions of the Registrar of Co-

operative Societies.

6. The learned Single Judge held that in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Chandrasekharan Nair G. and others v. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited and others [ 2017 (4) KLT 276 ], the appellant is entitled to receive the balance Gratuity amount accumulated to his credit in the Group Gratuity Insurance Scheme. The learned Single Judge set aside Ext.P8 order and directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner adverting to the observations contained in the Full Bench judgment.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant is before this Court filing writ appeal. The counsel for the appellant submitted that after finding the entitlement of the appellant, the learned Single Judge ought not have remitted back the issue to the respondents. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that this is the second round of litigation for getting Gratuity. Employees are entitled to get Gratuity within a month's time as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

9. After retirement, the appellant was paid an amount of ₹20 lakhs towards Gratuity. The claim of the appellant is that ₹40,49,960/- is accumulated as Gratuity in the Group Gratuity Insurance Scheme and therefore the appellant is entitled to receive the balance amount of ₹20,49,960/-. The learned Single Judge found that the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Chandrasekharan Nair G. and others (supra) upholds similar claim of the petitioners therein. The learned Single Judge, however, remitted back the matter to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the Full Bench judgment.

10. The petitioner is aggrieved by the dir