An employee is entitled to receive full amounts accumulated under LIC-linked gratuity schemes post-retirement, not merely those received earlier.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 25th day of March, 2026 Nagaresh, J.

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.02.2024 in W.P.

(C) No.35106 of 2019, respondents 1, 2 and 4 in the writ petition have filed this writ appeal.

2. The 1^st respondent was an employee of the

1^st appellant-Bank. On her retirement, Gratuity was paid to her. The 1^st respondent filed the writ petition seeking for a direction to appellants 1 and 2 to disburse the arrears of Gratuity due to her remitted by the 2^nd respondent-LIC with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

3. Respondents resisted the writ petition. After considering the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge held that the issue raised by the writ petitioner is covered by a Full Bench judgment of this Court inChandrasekharan Nair G. and others v. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and others [2017 (4) KLT 276] , wherein it was held that the prohibition contained under the second proviso to Rule 59(iii) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules, 1969, will not stand in the way of the petitioner receiving the entire amount as per the LIC linked Scheme. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to receive the entire amount as stated in Ext.P1.

4. In the light of the Full Bench judgment, the writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court directing respondents to pay balance Gratuity amount due to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 within a period of two months. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.02.2024 of the learned Single Judge, the appellants are before this Court.

5. The counsel for the appellants would submit that the 1^st appellant is a scheduled Apex Co-operative Bank and the 1^st respondent is an employee. After having received the Gratuity amount, the 1^st respondent cannot contend that she is entitled to further balance Gratuity amount accumulated in the Group Insurance Account in respect of the employees.

6. The contention of the appellants is that as the 1^st respondent has been paid Gratuity as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act , 1972, the 1^st respondent cannot seek further amount for the reason that further amounts are accumulated in the accounts of the Group Gratuity Scheme.

7. Counsel for the appellants pointed out that if any amount as per the Group Gratuity Scheme goes to the individual account of an employee, then there is some reason to hold that the said amount should go to the employee. The Full Bench judgment dealt with such a situation. As far as the Scheme under which the 1^st respondent is concerned, the excess amount goes to a common pool which would go to the benefit of all other employees. Therefore, the Full Bench judgment in Chandrasekharan Nair G. and others (supra)

is distinguishable.

8. Counsel for the respondents entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. Relying on Ext.P1 communication issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, counsel for the 1^st respondent urged that amounts have been accumulated in the accounts of individual employees as indicated therein and therefore they are entitled to full amount accumulated to their credit under the Insurance Scheme. Writ Appeal is, therefore, without any merit.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent. We have also heard the learned Standing Counsel representing the 2^nd respondent.

10. The question whether excess amount in the credits of the employees under the Group Gratuity Scheme is payable fully to such employees, came up for consideration before this Court. In the Full Bench judgment in Chandrasekharan Nair G. and others (supra), this Court held that the prohibition contained under second proviso to Rule 59(ii