JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. I have heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. H. Roy, learned senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The controversy raised, in the present writ petition, lies in a narrow compass. The writ Petitioner retired, on 31.7.2002, as Chief Engineer of the Assam State Electricity Board ('ASEB'). In terms of the Office Memorandum, dated 5.9.2001, published in the Assam Gazette (Extraordinary), on 26.12.2001, the Government of Assam enhanced the maximum limit of its employees' Death-cum-Retirement-Gratuity, ('the DCRG'), from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 3.5 lakhs. In terms of an Office Memorandum, dated 28.4.1999, issued by the ASEB, the ASEB had decided to be guided, in matters of DCRG, by the DCRG Rules of the State Government, the maximum limit of DCRG in respect of even the employees of ASEB stands, according to the Petitioner, automatically enhanced to Rs. 3.5 lakhs with the publication of the Government's Office Memorandum, dated 5.9.2001, aforementioned. Complaining that the Petitioner has not been given the benefit of the Office Memorandum, dated 5.9.2001, aforementioned, though he is, as an ASEB employee, entitled to receive, on his retirement, the maximum limits of Rs. 3.5 lakhs as his gratuity, the Petitioner has approached this Court, with the help of the present application, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking, inter alia, issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to release in his favour Rs. 3.5 lakhs as gratuity in terms of the Office Memorandum, dated 28.4.1999, aforementioned. 3. For the purpose of resolving the controversy, which this writ petition raises for determination, it is necessary to take note of the exact contents of the relevant office memorandum, dated 28.4.1999, issued by the ASEB with regard to its policy on the subject of DCRG. This office memorandum, dated 28.4.1999, on which rests the entire case of the Petitioner, reads as follows: ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ASEB(DC) 59/99/117 dated Guwahati the 20th April, 1999 OFFICE MEMORANDUM 5. Death-cum-Retirement-Gratuity: With due consideration of the recommendation of the Pay Committee, 1997 the Board is pleased to lay down the principles that Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of an employee should be calculated on the basis of last pay drawn with the dearness allowance admissible thereon. The Board is also pleased to raise the maximum limit of admissible Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity to a Board employee from Rs. The Board is also pleased to raise the maximum limit of admissible Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity to a Board employee from Rs. 1 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs with effect from 1.4.1997. At the same time, it is also laid down that in such matters. Board should be guided by the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Rules of the Govt. of Assam. 4. As the Petitioner seeks to draw benefit of the office memorandum, dated 5.9.2001, this office memorandum too is quoted hereinbelow: OFFICE MEMORANDUM The 5th September, 2001 No. PPG(P)164/98/Pt.II/45.- Consequent upon the decision taken by the Government of India in respect of enhancement of D.C.R.G. in case of the Central Government employees, the Governor of Assam is pleased to decide that the existing provision containing in Para 9 of O.M. No. PPG(P) 164/98/66, dated 19th November, 1998 under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, may be revised as follows: The existing limit if Rs. 2.00 lakhs for maximum benefit of D.C.R.G. in case of State Government employees as provided under Para 9 of Pension & Public Grievances Department's O.M No. PPG(P) 164/98/66, dated 19th November, 1998 shall be, enhanced unto maximum limit of Rs. 3.50 lakhs. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that in terms of the office memorandum, dated 28.4.1999, the ASEB had already taken a decision to be guided, by the gratuity rules of the State Government on the subject of DCRG and since the State Government has enhanced the maximum limit of DCRG for its employees from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 3.5 lakhs, the Petitioner too shall be paid Rs. 3.5 lakhs, for, he retired, when the office memorandum, dated 28.4.1999, aforementioned, was still in force. In view of the case, which the Petitioner has so set up, it is imperative to carefully analyse the contents of Clause 5 of the office memorandum, dated 5.4.1999, aforementioned. 6. A careful reading of Clause 5 of the Office Memorandum, dated 5.4.1999, aforementioned reveals that the ASEB (in the light of what Clause 5 contains) decided, on 5.4.1999, to lay down the principles for making computation/calculations of the DCRG in respect of its employees and also made it clear, in this regard, in the said office memorandum, that the DCRG of an employees shall be calculated on the basis of the last pay drawn by the employee concerned with the dearness allowance admissible thereon. Clause 5 also reveals that the ASEB decided to raise the maximum limit of DCRG from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 2 lakhs with effect from 1.4.1997, Clause 5 further reveals that the ASEB decided that in respect of matters involving DCRG, the ASEB should, in future, be guided by the DCRG rules of the Government of Assam. The use of the expression 'should be guided' is of immense importance. A close reading of the expression 'should be guided', appearing in Clause 5, leaves no room for doubt that while taking a decision in matters of DCRG, the ASEB 'should be guided' by DCRG rules of the State Government irrespective of the fact whether such matters involve the method of calculation or the limit of DCRG. A dispassionate reading of the contents of Clause 5 does not permit this Court to stretch Clause 5 to mean that the ASEB undertook to pay DCRG on such enhanced rates, which the Government may, in future, choose for its employees. What, at best, Clause 5 projects is that the ASEB had decided, on 28.4.1999, that while taking any decision, in future, in matters of DCRG, whether such matters relate to the method of calculation or the limit of the DCRG, it would be guided by the relevant rules of the State Government. Clause 5 of the said office memorandum can, in no way, be read to mean that the enhancement of DCRG of the State Government employees would, automatically, apply to the employees of the ASEB. To put it differently, the Office Memorandum, dated 28.04.1999, issued by the ASEB does not postulate that with the enhancement of the maximum limit of the benefits of the DCRG in respect of the State Government employees, the maximum limit of the DCRG in respect of the ASEB employees too would, automatically, stand enhanced. In fact, the office memorandum, dated 28.4.1999, indicates that whenever the question of enhancing the limit of the DCRG arises, the ASEB would be still required to take a decision as regards the rate at which it would pay DCRG to its employees, though, while taking the decision, in this regard, it would be guided by the rules, which the State Government may have, in this regard, in respect of its employees. The office memorandum, dated 28.4.1999, did not divest the ASEB of its power to take a decision as regards the rate at which the ASEB would pay the benefits of DCRG to its employers, though in terms of the office memorandum, dated 28.4.1999, it did undertake to be guided, in these matters, by the rules of the State Government. 7. Thus, what Clause 5, at best, indicates is that whenever the ASEB is required to take a decision on the question of either determining the method of calculation of the DCRG in respect of its employees or while deciding the question as to whether it should enhance the maximum limit of the DCRG, it would be guided by the relevant rules of the State Government meant for its employees. Indeed, the past conduct of the ASEB as well as their subsequent conduct reinforces this impression, for, it is not in dispute, as clearly indicated by the ASEB in their affidavit-in-opposition, that the ASEB used to follow earlier the Central Government schemes and the policies with regard to the principles governing the DCRG, but on the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission of the Central Government, when the maximum gratuity for the Central Government employees was raised from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 2.5 lakhs with effect from 1.4.1995, the ASEB's Pay Committee constituted, in the year 1997, while recommending the revised pay scale of gratuity, did not recommend the maximum gratuity of Rs. 2.5 lakhs in the line of the Central Government and, instead recommended Rs. 2 lakhs as the maximum limit of gratuity for the employees of the ASEB, this recommendation for enhancement being in tune with the State Government's revision of the limit of the gratuity amount in respect of its employees. It was in this context and in this background that the ASEB decided to be guided by the DCRG rules of the State Government, whenever the question for enhancement of the rate of the DCRG for its own employees would arise. 8. It was in this context and in this background that the ASEB decided to be guided by the DCRG rules of the State Government, whenever the question for enhancement of the rate of the DCRG for its own employees would arise. 8. When considered in the above backdrop, there remains no escape from the conclusion that the rate of DCRG applicable to the employees of the ASEB was not to change, automatically, with the change in the late of DCRG of the State Government employees; rather, a conscious decision is still required to be taken by the ASEB, whenever such a question arises, though, while taking the decision, the ASEB, in terms If the office memorandum, dated 20.4.1999, undertook to be guided by the rules of the State Government framed in this regard. That there was no change in the policy of the ASEB is clear from the fact that the ASEB, as the undisputed affidavit-in-opposition of the ASEB reflects, resolved, on 3.1.2002, to seek the State Government's approval on its views on the enhancement of the DGRG in respect of its own employees. The Government, however, clarified that it was for the ASEB to decide as to what it would do with regard to enhancement of the ceiling admissible to the employees of the ASEB inasmuch as the ASEB's transfer scheme already stood notified. It was, thereafter that the ASEB decided, vide its memorandum, dated 28.5.2005, to enhance the rate of gratuity from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 3.5 lakhs for its employees with effect from 5.8.2004. The legality, correctness or justification of the Office Memorandum, dated 28.5.2005, aforementioned are not under challenge in the present writ petition. This Court is, therefore, not required, at this stage, to make any comment if the Office Memorandum, dated 28.5.2005 aforementioned suffers from discrimination or arbitrariness or whether the Petitioner shall also be given the benefit of the Office Memorandum, dated 28.5.2005, aforementioned or not. 9. Mr. This Court is, therefore, not required, at this stage, to make any comment if the Office Memorandum, dated 28.5.2005 aforementioned suffers from discrimination or arbitrariness or whether the Petitioner shall also be given the benefit of the Office Memorandum, dated 28.5.2005, aforementioned or not. 9. Mr. H. Roy, learned senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, has considerable force, when he submits that since any increase in the limits of the DCRG may have cascading effect on the ASEB, the ASEB is bound to take its financial capacity into account before taking a decision in respect of enhancement of rate of the DCRG, though, while, taking a decision in these matters, it would be guided by the relevant Rules of the State Government. Nothing could be submitted, on behalf of the writ Petitioner, to show that under the office memorandum, dated 28.4.1999, the ASEB decided that with the change in the rate of the DCRG applicable to the State Government employees, the maximum limit of the DCRG of the employees of the ASEB would automatically stand raised to such limit as the State Government may choose in respect of its employees. The rate of gratuity may be enhanced or may be reduced by an employer. It was, therefore, in such, circumstances open even to the State Government to either raise or bring down the rate of gratuity for its employees. Neither the enhancement in the rate of the DCRG by the State Government nor the reduction or lowering of the limit of the benefits of DCRG in respect of State Government employees would automatically apply to the ASEB employees. In either case, a conscious decision is required to be taken by the ASEB. In other words, a decision is required to be taken by the ASEB as to whether, with the increase in the rate of the DCRG by the State Government in respect of its State employees, the ASEB should also increase the limit of the benefits of the DCRG for its own employees or when the limit of gratuity is lowered by the State Government in respect of its employees, whether the ASEB should also reduce or bring down the limit, which it had fixed in respect of DCRG for its employees. 10. 10. In view of the fact that the Petitioner's case rests entirely on Clause 5 of the office memorandum, dated 28.4.1999, and since this office memorandum does not, as discussed above, entitle, automatically, an employee of the ASEB to claim enhancement in the limit of gratuity with the enhancement in the limit of DCRG in respect of the State government employees, this writ petition, in my considered view, has no merit, particularly, when the office memorandum, dated 28.5.2005, is not under, challenge and in terms of the office memorandum, dated 28.5.2005, the Petitioner is not entitled to be paid the DCRG at the rate of 3.5 lakhs, for, the enhancement in the ceiling of the DCRG for the ASEB employees has been made effective from 5.8.2004, whereas the writ Petitioner retired, as mentioned above, on 31.7.2002. 11. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this writ petition fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.