JUDGMENT : ANU SIVARAMAN, J. 1. The petitioners were managerial employees of the 1st respondent Company. They resigned from service in June, 2008, April, 2008, on 17.10.2007, 31.10.2007, 17.10.2007, 6.2.2008 and 16.6.2010 respectively. They claim leave encashment on resignation as well as enhanced gratuity on the basis of Exhibit P7 pay revision order implemented for officers under the 1st respondent. They challenge the restrictive conditions under clause 12(1) of Exhibit P7 and seek earned leave encashment and balance of gratuity on the basis of the pay revision orders. 2. Heard Advocate Sri. Kayalatt Kuttykrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Advocate Sri. Benny P. Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the pay revision is sanctioned by Exhibits P8 and P10 orders by the Union Government and that the 1st respondent has no authority to deviate from the basic features of the said orders. But clause 12 of Exhibit P7 issued by the 1st respondent excludes those who resigned from service after 1.1.2007 from the coverage of the order including the enhancement of the ceiling on gratuity. In accordance with clause 17 of Exhibit P8, the revised pay scales will be effective from 1.1.2007. The learned counsel further contends that different treatment between those who were in service as on 1.1.2007 and retired after that date and those who resigned from the service with the permission of the management after that date is discriminatory. It is contended that Exhibit P12 order of pay revision in the Indian Oil Corporation would go to show that benefits are granted to all officers in service as on 1.1.2007. It is further stated that the denial of enhanced gratuity to persons who retired between 1.1.2007 and the date of Exhibit P7 order is also discriminatory. The petitioners, therefore, claim enhanced gratuity and earned leave encashment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on Exhibit P14 judgment of this Court to contend that when an enhanced amount of gratuity is provided by the pay revisions orders, the same cannot be denied to an employee whose services are terminated on any count. It is further contended that the denial of earned leave encashment to employees who resigned from service from 1.1.2007 to 14.8.2010 is without any rationale and is therefore discriminatory. It is further contended that the denial of earned leave encashment to employees who resigned from service from 1.1.2007 to 14.8.2010 is without any rationale and is therefore discriminatory. It is further stated that Exhibit P13(a) reply furnished by the Department of Fertilisers, the Union of India would show that no departure was contemplated from Exhibits P8 and P10. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would, on the other hand, submit that Exhibits P8 and P10 orders cannot be directly made applicable to the 1st respondent which is facing severe financial difficultires. It is stated that the petitioners are persons who retired from service before sanction was accorded by the Government of India for implementing the pay revision. Exhibit P7 order of pay revision was issued only on 14.8.2010 and it contained a specific clause that persons who left the services of the Company on any other account other than superannuation/voluntary retirement/death from 1.1.2007 to the date of the order would not be governed by the order. It is further contended that enhancement of gratuity is also not available to such employees, since the better terms of gratuity are made available only to those persons who are covered by Exhibit P7 order. It is submitted that these specific exclusions are incorporated in view of the financial condition of the Company and no parallel can be drawn with the implementation in high profit making concerns like the Indian Oil Corporation in Exhibit P12. 6. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. The relevant sub-clauses in clause 12 of Exhibit P7 pay revision order read as follows: "12.0 Coverage 1. These orders shall be applicable to all managerial personnel who are on the rolls of the Company as on the date of this order and shall also be applicable to such Officers who were on rolls of the Company as on 1.1.2007 but ceased to be in employment on any date thereafter due to Superannuation/VR/Death subject to conditions mentioned below. This order will not be applicable to those who left the services of the Company on any other account during the period from 1.1.2007 to the date of this order. This order will not be applicable to those who left the services of the Company on any other account during the period from 1.1.2007 to the date of this order. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 3.(a) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (e) In respect of Officers who leave the services of the Company on or after the date of this order, payment for the period from 1.8.2008 till 31.7.2010 will be made on leaving the services after adjusting the amount already paid in instalments. 4. The ceiling on payment of gratuity is enhanced to Rs. 10 lakhs with effect from 1.1.2007 and will be applicable to those covered under clause 12.1 above upto 24.5.2010 after which applicability of Rs. 10 lakh ceiling will be as per provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act. 7. It is clear from a reading of the above provisions of the pay revision order that the benefit of leave encashment as well as the coverage of the pay revision will not be applicable to those who left the services of the Company on resignation during the period from 1.1.2007 to 14.8.2010. All the petitioners are persons who left the services of the Company during the said period. 8. On an anxious consideration of Exhibit P14 judgment, it is clear that the issue considered therein was with regard to the right of employees, whose services are terminated by resignation or removal, to gratuity in terms of the revised pay. It was held that in view of the clear provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act which applies notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the employees who resigned from service cannot be denied the benefit of the maximum amount of gratuity provided in the Act, on the ground that they had resigned from service. 9. In the instant case, the petitioners claim for enhanced gratuity of Rs. 10 lakh arises only on account of clause 12(4) of the pay revision order. The provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act at the time of the resignation of the petitioners stood un-amended providing for a maximum gratuity of Rs. 3.5 lakh. The pay revision order gave a better benefit to the employees who were covered by the same. The petitioners, who had resigned from service after 1.1.2007 but before the date of the pay revision order were specifically excluded from the coverage of the pay revision order. 3.5 lakh. The pay revision order gave a better benefit to the employees who were covered by the same. The petitioners, who had resigned from service after 1.1.2007 but before the date of the pay revision order were specifically excluded from the coverage of the pay revision order. Since the amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act raising the ceiling of gratuity to Rs. 10 lakh was effected only on 25.4.2010, the rationale in Exhibit P14 judgment cannot apply to the petitioners who had resigned from service before such amendment. However, persons who resigned from service after the amendment in the Payment of Gratuity Act would be entitled to gratuity as provided in the Act. 10. The further claims raised to the effect that the classification between employees who were in service as on 1.1.2007 and who resigned from service after that date and before the date of Exhibit P7 and who continued in service or ceased to be in service on account of superannuation/voluntary retirement/death for the purpose of implementation of pay revision is discriminatory also cannot be accepted. The pay revision was made applicable to employees of the 1st respondent only by Exhibit P7 order. The said order was dated 14.8.2010. It is stated that due to financial stringency, the 1st respondent had decided to limit the coverage of the said order. The relevance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on Exhibit P14 judgment is not well founded, since the specific issue raised and considered in the said judgment was with regard to the classification between employees who superannuated/voluntarily retired/died while in service and those who had resigned or who removed from service in view of an earlier judgment and the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. It was held that since the Act does not differentiate between retirement and resignation, such classification is not possible for payment of amounts statutorily due under the provisions of the Act. Since the claim of petitioners to enhanced gratuity and earned leave encashment arises only in terms of the pay revision order of 2010 from the ambit of which they are specifically excluded on account of the financial situation of the Company, I find no ground to interfere with the orders and action impugned in this writ petition. In the above view of the matter, I find no merit in the claims raised by the petitioners. In the above view of the matter, I find no merit in the claims raised by the petitioners. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, if the resignation of any of the petitioners was effective from a date after the amendment effected to the Payment of Gratuity Act, enhancing the amount of gratuity, they will be entitled to such benefit.