AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J.—These matters had been listed for preliminary hearing in ''B'' group and subsequently, at the request of learned advocates appearing for the parties, same came to be listed in orders'' list and by their consent, it is taken up for final disposal.
I have heard the arguments of Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation in extenso and perused the case papers including the statement of objections filed by the respondent-Corporation.
Petitioners in these writ petitions are seeking endorsement dated 20.09.2008 (Annexure-G, G1 to G16) in W.P. Nos. 67313-329/2011 and endorsement dated 12.01.2011 Annexure-M (in W.P. No. 66136/2011) being set aside. Contentions raised, judgments relied upon and defence put forward in all these writ petitions are identical and common. Hence, these petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
Sri Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation has fairly submitted that the statement of objections filed in W.P. No. 66136/2011 would also holds good for W.P. Nos. 67313-29/2011 and he would adopt the same. His submission is placed on record.
BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
Petitioners have sought for quashing of the endorsement dated 20.09.2008 Annexure-G, G1 to G16 and for a direction to the Corporation to calculate difference of gratuity amount to be paid to the petitioners as per the order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4637/2006 in the matter of Management of KSRTC, the Chief Law Officer v. R. Krishna Reddy. Petitioners herein came to be appointed as Artisan, Helper, Clerk, Typist, Security Guard, Conductor, Driver, Writer, Assistant Accountant etc., on various dates from 1964 onwards. They have all attained superannuation and retired from services. Undisputedly, there was a settlement between the Employees'' Union and Corporation on 27.09.1981 which included settlement arrived at between the parties with regard to payment of gratuity and the mode in which calculation is to be made. Alleging nonpayment of gratuity as per settlement that had been arrived at and as per the decision rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in Krishna Reddy''s case, petitioners had approached this Court in W.P. No. 3802/2008 and connected matters which came to be disposed of directing respondent-Corporation to consider the representations which would be submitted by the petitioners and Corporation was also directed to take into consideration the undertaking given by the Corporation in W.P. No. 41135/2003. Pursuant to the same, representations came to be submitted by petitioners and said representations were considered and rejected by impugned endorsements issued to the petitioners. Hence, they have sought for quashing of the endorsements and for further direction to Corporation to pay the differential gratuity.
At the outset, Mr. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel would raise an initial objection with regard to maintainability of these writ petitions. He contends that these writ petitions are not maintainable on the ground that petitioners are having alternate remedy under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, namely under Section 7 (4) of the Act, they have to approach the controlling authority for determination of the gratuity payable and after such order being passed, they have right of appeal under sub Section (7) of Section 7 of the Act to the appellate authority and as such without exhausting the said alternate remedy, which is very efficacious, they cannot invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and as such, he prays for dismissal of these writ petitions.
Per contra, Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court is one of discretion and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and availability of an alternate remedy is not an inviolable rule for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction and where the authorities act contrary to the law settled by this Court and deprive the right of the petitioners, this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he prays for rejection of the said contention. He would also submit that petitioners had earlier approached this Court earlier in W.P. No. 3802/2008 and connected matters and this Court by order dated 03.04.2008 had disposed of the writ petitions, reserving liberty to the petitioners to submit representations to the Corporation and had also reserved liberty to the Corporation to examine the claim of the petitioners and settle the claims of petitioners since similarly placed persons as that of petitioners in the case of Management of KSRTC th. Chief Law Officer Vs. R. Krishna Reddy, had been extended the benefit claimed by petitioners and Corporation had settled such claim and as such petitioners had approached Corporation with a representation for grant of Gratuity by merging Dearness Allowance and said claim having been rejected by Corporation in perfunctory manner and without application of mind, petitioners have been perforced to approach this Court yet again for redressal of their grievance and hence, he prays for rejection of the preliminary objection.
Sri Dinesh Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for petitioners has also contended that as per the dicta laid down in Krishna Reddy''s case by coordinate bench of this Court, basic pay includes DA and there being no dispute to the fact that DA had been merged with the basic pay with effect from 01.04.1998 and thereafter petitioners having continued in service have earned increments and thereafter had retired on various dates and as such, non inclusive of DA component or its merger to the basic pay by the Corporation has resulted in hostile discrimination since employees who had retired subsequent to retirement of petitioners have received the benefit of subsequent merger of DA with basic pay and he would elaborate his submission by contending that method adopted by the Corporation to exclude D.A. from basic pay is diametrically opposite to the dicta laid down in Krishna Reddy''s case by this Court as affirmed by Apex Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petitions and seeks for direction being issued to the Corporation to redo the computation of gratuity payable to the petitioners and he also prays for a direction being issued to Corporation to pay the difference of Gratuity amount to which the petitioners would be entitled to.
Sri Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation would contend that on facts, the claims made by the petitioners is clearly distinguishable from Krishna Reddy''s case rendered in W.P. No. 31735/1998 dated 13.10.2003 and elaborates his submission by contending that it is an undisputed fact that while settling the claim for gratuity of employees of Corporation, they would be entitled to have adjudication of the claim which is beneficial to them either under the extant Regulations or under the Gratuity Act and amongst of the two, one which is beneficial to the workman/employee is being extended and as such, petitioner-workmen have been paid gratuity as per the extant regulations governing the employees of Corporation by adopting formula of basic pay multiplied by number of years of service employees has rendered (Basic pay X No. of years of services = Gratuity) and payment made to petitioners on the said basis does not suffer from any infirmity. He would also contend that petitioners having retired long back cannot now be allowed to re-open their claims at this belated stage. He would also contend that DA having been merged with the basic pay as on 01.04.1998 and based on the said merged pay, gratuity has been calculated and same is just and proper. It is also contended that on account of increments having accrued to the employees after such merger, petitioners cannot be heard to contend that such variable DA should again be merged in the basic pay since it would amount to merger of DA twice and as such, method of calculation done by Corporation as per the extant Regulations is just and proper not calling for interference. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the case records and the pleadings of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that following points would arise for consideration:
"i) Whether writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of petitioners are having an alternate remedy available under Section 7(4) and 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972?
ii) Whether endorsements Annexure - G series and Annexure - M in respective writ petitions are liable to be quashed, set aside?
OR
Whether writ petitions are liable to be dismissed?"
REG. POINT NO. 1:
When there is an alternate and efficacious remedy available under law, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India would refrain itself from exercising its jurisdiction until and unless it is demonstrated that authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction or have acted without jurisdiction or the act complained is ultra vires of the Act or the impugned order being in violation of principles of natural justice and for other justifiable reasons since there being palpable injustice being caused, unless interfered. There is no infallible rule that, this Court would not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India for grant of relief. When injustice alleged is manifest and apparent on face, it would be traversity of justice to direct the petitioner to avail alternate remedy and it would only be a ritual or empty formality or exercise in futility since no fruitful purpose will be served by taking such recourse.
As a matter of judicial discipline, this Court would refrain itself from exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction when there is an alternate and efficacious remedy available under law. However, where it is found that issue involved in the petition is no more res-integra and same having been settled by law Courts, directing parties to avail the alternate remedy would not only be a ritual but it would also not serve any fruitful purpose. In fact, in the instant case, similar issue had come up for consideration before this Court and not only plea of delay and laches had been raised but also availability of alternate remedy by the very same Corporation in W.A. Nos. 1470/2009 and 2067-2130/2009 and after considering such plea, Division Bench of this Court negatived said contention by order dated 09.03.2010. It came to be held by the Division Bench as under:
"In the instant cases, the question of delay is irrelevant. The appellants are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. When the Apex Court has laid down the law in Krishna Reddy''s case, it is obligatory for the appellants to pay the employees similarly placed in consonance with the ratio laid down without driving the eligible employees to another round of litigation.''''
(emphasis supplied by me)
The dicta laid down by the Division Bench of this Court is squarely applicable to the facts on hand. For reasons not only assigned by the Division Bench but also for the reason that very same petitioners had approached this Court earlier seeking similar relief in W.P. No. 3802/2008 and connected matters. Co-ordinate bench of this Court after entertaining the writ petitions and after considering the rival contentions, by taking note of the submission that had been made before the Division Bench following directions came to be issued by this Court:
"Having regard to the undertaking given by the Corporation and having regard to the explanation give to the said undertaking by the Division Bench, the petitioners in these cases are also entitled to make representation to the Corporation for examination of their individual cases in pursuance of the judgment of the Apex Court in Krishna Reddy''s case and also the Government Order and if the Corporation finds that they are entitled in terms of the decision of the Apex Court as well as the Government Order, their claim has to be settled on merit. Neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of this Court has decided the matter and the issue as to whether Krishna Reddy''s case is applicable to all the employees of the Corporation or not. Issue is kept open by the Division Bench. Since the Division Bench has already given liberty to some of the employees, I find it necessary to issue similar direction to the Corporation for consideration of the representations to be given by the petitioners and if such representations are given, they may be considered by the Corporation taking into consideration the undertaking given before the learned single judge at para-3 of the order referred to above and the Corporation to decide the matter strictly in terms of the undertaking."
On such direction being issued by this Court to the Corporation to consider the representations that would be submitted by the employees, petitioners submitted their representation as per Annexure-F series in W.P. Nos. 67313-329/2011. On such representations being submitted by the petitioners, it has been examined by the respondent-Corporation and by impugned endorsements which are all similar, identical and prototype came to be issued as per Annexure-G, G1 to G16 rejecting the claim of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 67313-329/2011. Likewise, petitioner in W.P. No. 66136/2011 had approached this Court in W.P. No. 16338/2007 which came to be disposed of on the same lines of direction issued in W.P. No. 3802/2008 and connected matters by directing the Corporation to consider the representations that would be given by the petitioner within two weeks. Accordingly, representations came to be submitted by the petitioners. In the meanwhile, Review Petition filed by the Corporation in R.P. No. 66/2008 seeking review of the order passed in W.P. No. 16338/2007 also came to be dismissed on 15.04.2008 Annexure-J (in W.P. No. 66136/2011). When contempt proceedings came to be initiated by the petitioner and same was pending, endorsement dated 07.10.2008 Annexure-K came to be issued to the petitioner. Hence, contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner in CCC No. 2260/2011 came to be dropped by reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the endorsement dated 07.10.2008 before proper forum. Said endorsement dated 07.10.2008 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 61087/2009 and this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent-Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioner since his claim is fully covered by the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in Krishna Reddy''s case. It is thereafter impugned endorsement dated 12.01.2011 Annexure-M came to be issued to petitioners. Accordingly, petitioners are before this Court challenging the said endorsements. In view of the fact that petitioners had approached this Court for similar relief and Corporation having been directed to consider their claims, it would not be appropriate to divert the petitioners to approach the Controlling Authority for redressal of their grievance.
For these myriad reasons stated above, respondent-Corporation cannot be heard to contend that petitioners are to be driven back to the controlling authority for redressal of their grievance and only after such adjudication by Controlling Authority or Appellate Authority they should approach this Court. Yet another reason for this Court to entertain these Writ Petitions is on account of the stand taken by the respondent-Corporation herein, that dicta laid down in Krishna Reddy''s case would not be applicable to the petitioners and also on account of their stand that Dearness Allowance granted subsequent to merger need not be included in basic pay while calculating the Gratuity payable to the employees. These aspects would not be in the realm of authorities to adjudicate and they can only examine the issue of quantification. Hence, on this ground also, writ petitions are required to be entertained by this Court. As already noticed hereinabove and at the cost of repetition, it has to be held that if such an exercise is undertaken by this Court and the claim of the petitioners are rejected at threshold, it would result in great injustice being caused to them and particularly when the division bench of this Court has categorically held that petitioners should not be driven to the authorities for redressal of their grievance directing the petitioners to approach the Controlling Authority or appellate authority would not be proper course. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that point No. 1 formulated herein above is to be answered against the Corporation and in favour of the petitioners.
RE.POINT NO. 2:
There cannot be any dispute with regard to the fact that in respect of employees working in respondent - Corporation, they would be entitled to seek payment of gratuity either under the Act or under the extant regulations and opt which is beneficial to them.
It is also not in dispute that in the instant writ petitions Gratuity Regulations of Corporation is more beneficial to the employees then the provision of Gratuity Act and it is because of this precise reason, Corporation has adopted or computed the gratuity payable to petitioners by applying its regulations. A memorandum of settlement had been entered into between Corporation and its Employees Federation under Section 2(p) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 59(4) of Industrial Disputes Act (Karnataka) Rules 1957. Said settlement entered into between parties as per Annexure - A would govern the issue in question is also not in serious dispute. As agreed to thereunder gratuity that becomes payable to an employee is required to be computed in the manner specified thereunder namely clause (vii) which reads as under:
"7. GRATUITY:
(a) Gratuity shall be paid in accordance with the Gratuity Regulations or in accordance with the provisions of the Gratuity Act 1972 whichever is beneficial to the employee.
(b) The quantum of gratuity shall be equal to one moth''s pay for each completed year of service. For incomplete period of final year of service, if any prorata contribution of gratuity shall be reckoned for completed months excluding part of the moth if any. In the event of payment of gratuity to employees dismissed from service for misconduct, the Management may deduct from the gratuity payable, financial loss if any, caused to it on account of any such misconduct.
(c) Gratuity shall be paid on the basis of pay drawn on the date of any events stipulated in Clause (5) of Gratuity Regulations and the pay would include basic pay, personal pay and charge allowance consequent upon holding incharge of a higher post and not additional charge."
Above clause in the agreement, it would clearly indicate that gratuity to be paid to employees would be in accordance with the Gratuity Regulations of the Corporation and clause (c) of the settlement would also clearly indicate that such gratuity would be computed on the basis of basic pay drawn by the employee as on date of any event stipulated in clause (5) of Gratuity Regulations would occur and it would include basic pay, personal pay and charge allowance consequent upon holding charge of a higher post and not additional charge. In the same settlement agreement dated 27.09.1981 under clause 6 it has been agreed to between the parties that Dearness Allowance as granted by Government of Karnataka to its employees would be paid by Corporation to its employees and on par. Clause 6 of the agreement reads as under:
"6. Dearness Allowance, HRA and CCA:
The existing rates of Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance shall be on par with the rates of such allowances granted by Government of Karnataka to its employees Revision, if any, in this behalf which may be sanctioned by the State Government from time to time shall be automatically made applicable to the employees of KSRTC on the same rates and from the same dates.
In case, the Government of Karnataka merges the D.A. with the basic pay at any time, during the currency of this settlement, the same shall be adopted by the Corporation, but this will not entail a further revision of pay scale. The benefits if any, will be restricted to fixation of pay at the stage, if it falls at the stage in the revised pay scales. If there is no such state, the pay will be fixed at the stage next below that pay and the difference treated as personal pay. The personal pay shall be absorbed on promotion or in future revision of pay scales."
It is not in issue in these writ petitions that said memorandum of settlement which was for a period of 3 years was agreed to be continued atleast insofar as Dearness allowance and payment of gratuity is concerned and said settlement entered into between parties came to be extended from time to time and it was undisputedly approved by the Government of Karnataka and on the date petitioners retired said agreement was in force and vogue.
Petitioners have contended that Government Order provided for merger of Dearness Allowance with basic pay for purposes of reckoning gratuity payable and in the same manner Gratuity payable to petitioners is required to be calculated, as such they have contended that they also entitled for difference in gratuity after Dearness Allowance is added to basic pay. Hence, petitioners are claiming for payment of difference in gratuity, since Dearness Allowance component had not been included in the basic pay for purposes of calculating Gratuity by Corporation. In fact, defence raised by the Corporation in these writ petitions is to the effect that Government Order has not been adopted by Corporation and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the benefit accruing from the Government Order and same was also the plea put forward in Krishna Reddy''s case which came to be negatived and it has been held by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court as under:
"13. Learned counsel appearing for respondent xxxx retired from service 01.01.1996 to 01.01.1998. Therefore, this contention of respondents that they have the discretion to adopt or not the Government Order and when they have not adopted the Government Order the petitioner is not entitled to the said benefit is without any substance."
As to whether the word "adding" or "merging" would be separate and distinct words and as such, Dearness Allowance payable to employees would form part of basic pay component or not was also in issue in Krishna Reddy''s case and co-ordinate Bench of this Court after examining rival contentions raised in that regard has held to the following effect:
"14. In so far as the other contention that the Government Order only speaks of adding Dearness Allowance to the basic pay wherein Clause (5) refers to merger of Dearness Allowance with basic pay is concerned, I do not find any substance. The word ''adding of basic pay'' ''adding of Dearness Allowance'' or the word ''merger of Dearness Allowance with basic pay'' are synonyms. There is no difference in meaning with those two phrases. The ultimate result is the same. If such hypertechnical interpretation of these phrases are accepted it would result in great injustice to one of the parties to the contract. Moreover, they are not words used in any statute. They are the words used by the Government at one place and the respondents in their order. Moreover, in the subsequent order passed by the KSRTC they have understood the said word as merger and has given benefit to its employees. Under the circumstance, I do not find any merit in the said contention also.
The gratuity payable to the workmen is the wages which he has earned. It is a differed wages payable on his retirement. When the stipulation in the settlement categorically provides for extension of all benefits given by the Government to KSRTC employees and when the said Government Order specifically provides for merger of/addition of Dearness Allowance with basic pay for the purpose of calculating gratuity the petitioner is legitimately entitled to the said benefit of the Government Order. The Appellate Authority has proceeded on the assumption that unless the respondents adopt the said Government Order the petitioner is not entitled to the said benefit. The workmen are not at mercy of the respondents. Once there is a solemn settlement entered into between the parties it is binding on them. One party of the said settlement by unilateral action cannot alter the terms of settlement by taking a stand that unless the Government Order is adopted by them the petitioner is not entitled to the relief. The said Government Order is expressly adopted under the terms of settlement to the workmen of the respondent of which petitioner is one. Therefore seen from any angle the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for. Hence, I pass the following order.
Rule is made absolute. The impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority at Annexure-K is hereby quashed. The Order passed by Controlling Authority as per Annexure-F is upheld.
Respondents are directed to pay the difference in gratuity payable to the petitioner in terms of Annexure-F within three months from today parties to bear their own costs."
In light of the above findings recorded in Krishna Reddy''s case, order passed by Controlling Authority directing Corporation to pay gratuity by adding or merging Dearness Allowance to basic pay came to be upheld and order passed by Appellate Authority which was contrary to same was set aside. Order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 31735/1998 dated 13.10.2003 was the subject matter of appeal in W.A. No. 7954/2003. Division Bench after considering the contentions raised by respective learned Advocates, affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge and it has also been noticed by Division Bench that Corporation itself has applied the Government Order, Annexure - B 28.11.1995 in respect of its employees who had retired after 01.04.1998 onwards and as such, it was held that employees who had retired between 01.01.1996 to 01.01.1998 would also be eligible for such merger. In fact, contention had been raised by the Corporation before the Division Bench to the effect that Dearness Allowance as on 01.01.1996 having been merged with effect from 01.04.1998 and new scales having been involved, it is only such of those employees who had retired subsequent to 01.04.1998 would get the benefit and not the employees who had retired earlier. However, said plea or contention was not accepted by Division Bench and it came to be held that irrespective of the fact whether an employee has retired prior to 01.04.1998 or subsequent to it, such employees would be entitled for the benefit of Dearness Allowance payable in terms of Government Order Annexure - B and same was required to be added to basic pay and thereafter gratuity payable as per regulation is required to be calculated. As such, writ appeal field by Corporation came to be dismissed and order passed by learned Single Judge came to be affirmed.
Pursuing their grievance, Corporation filed Special Leave Petition before Hon''ble Apex Court which was converted to Civil Appeal No. 4637/2006, after leave being granted. Apex Court after examining the contentions raised by Corporation, rejected the plea put forward by Corporation and affirmed the order passed by Single Judge. Thus, order of the learned Single Judge passed in Krishna Reddy''s case has attained finality. Even in the instant case, following table would indicate 138% of basic Dearness Allowance fixed as on 01.04.1998 came to be merged with the basic pay and same was taken as basic pay namely pay drawn as on 01.01.2000 as indicated in column No. 6 herein below for purposes of calculating gratuity.
The contention of Corporation is that in terms of Krishna Reddy''s case, Dearness Allowance came to be merged with basic pay with effect from 01.01.2000 and same would constitute the basic pay of an employee and as such, by applying the extant regulation of Corporation gratuity payable has been determined by reckoning their number of years of service (Basic pay after merger X No. of years of service = gratuity) and as such, question of adding further D.A. earned to basic pay does not arise.
Per contra, the contention of petitioners is that subsequent to such merger, they have earned increments and have subsequently retired i.e., before next merger took place during which interregnum period they have received variable Dearness Allowance as per the index and this variable Dearness Allowance granted to each employee depends upon the basic pay, increment and number of years of service and when they have put in further service in corporation which undisputedly which varies from one employee to another employee such variable Dearness Allowance should also be merged with basic pay and then Gratuity requires to be calculated has not been accepted the by Corporation erroneously and as such, they are seeking direction.
As already noticed herein above in Krishna Reddy''s case, it has been held that when the settlement categorically provides for extension of all the benefits given by Government to its employees would also apply to Corporation employees and when said Government Order specifically provides for merger or addition of Dearness Allowance with basic pay for the purpose of calculating the gratuity, then petitioners would be legitimately entitled to contend that benefit of Government order should also be extended to them.
Shri Shivakumar S. Badawadagi would not dispute the fact that Corporation by Circular No. 09/2007 dated 11.07.2007 has merged the Dearness Allowance, yet against with the basic pay from 01.04.2006 by adding 71% Dearness Allowance to the basic pay. Said circular which has been made available by him during the course of arguments would clearly indicate that employees who have retired on or after 01.04.2006 would be entitled to claim gratuity on such merger of Dearness Allowance with the basic pay. Thus, incidental question that would arise would be: whether on account of there being no merger of Dearness Allowance between the date of retirement of petitioners till the next merger took place i.e., up to 01.04.2006, whether such employees would also be entitled to seek for merger of Dearness Allowance with basic pay and claim for payment of gratuity, the answer will have to be necessarily in the affirmative. When the employees who had retired from 01.01.1996 to 01.01.1998 had been deprived of this benefit of merger of Dearness Allowance with basic pay by Corporation, they had approached this Court and contention of Corporation came to be negatived by the co-ordinate Bench and affirmed by Division Bench as already noticed herein above. Hence, Corporation cannot now take a contrary stand particularly when the issue involved in the present writ petition having been laid to rest in Krishna Reddy''s case and said issue being no more res integra. Hence, point No. 2 came to be answered in affirmative i.e., in favour of petitioners and impugned endorsements are liable to be set aside.
In view of the aforestated reasons, this Court is of the considered view that petitioners would succeed in the present petition. Since there is no quantification or computation of gratuity amount payable by corporation to the petitioners by adding/merging of Dearness Allowance with their basic pay; this Court would not embark upon conducting such an exercise and same left to the respondent. Corporation to carry out such an exercise and if there is any difference of amounts required to be paid to petitioners, such amount shall be paid to all the petitioners expeditiously at any rate within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Hence, the following:
"ORDER
(i) Writ petitions are hereby allowed in part.
(ii) Annexures - G, G1 to G16 dated 20.09.2008 in W.P. Nos. 67313-329/2011 and Annexure - M dated 12.01.2011 in W.P. No. 66136/2011 issued by 2nd respondent - Corporation are hereby quashed.
(iii) Respondent - Corporation is hereby directed to carry out exercise of computing the gratuity payable to the petitioners in light of the observations made herein above and also by taking into consideration the subsequent circular No. 09/2007 dated 11.07.2007 and pay the difference of gratuity, if any, to all the petitioners within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
(v) Costs made easy."