ORDER : The instant writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondent-JSHB, Ranchi for payment of enhanced gratuity to the petitioner since he is entitled for the same in view of the recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Committee. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Junior Engineer-cum-In-charge Assistant Engineer, Hazaribagh Sub-Division, he, after completion of 60 years’ of his age, has superannuated from service on 31.10.2010. Thereafter, he has applied for disbursement for his post-retiral dues including the gratuity. The petitioner was paid the amount to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/-as gratuity, under the gratuity head in view of the provision of Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Central Government, vide Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2008 enhanced the rate of gratuity amount from Rs.3,50,000/-to Rs.10,00,000/-and as such the same is applicable to him also. The State Housing Board, Ranchi in its 29th Board’s Meeting dated 07.02.2011, issued policy decision pertaining to gratuity to their employees and enhance the rate of gratuity from Rs.3,50,000/-to Rs.10,00,000/-and, therefore, it has been contended that the petitioner is entitled to get the difference of arrears of amount of gratuity on the ground that when the Payment of Gratuity Act being a Central Legislation and in view of the provision of Sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the Act, 1972, provision of Section 1 of the Gratuity Act, 1972, which extend to the whole India save and except Jammu and Kashmir. 3. Section 4 contains a provisions for payment of Gratuity, which shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than 5 years i.e. (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease; Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death of disablement. Sub-section 3 of Section 4 stipulates that the amount of gratuity payable to employee shall not exceed Rs.3,50,000/-pre-amended, but after Amendment Act, 2010 (15 of 2010) the quantum of amount of Rs.3,50,000/-has been enhanced to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- with effect from 24.05.2010. Sub-section 3 of Section 4 stipulates that the amount of gratuity payable to employee shall not exceed Rs.3,50,000/-pre-amended, but after Amendment Act, 2010 (15 of 2010) the quantum of amount of Rs.3,50,000/-has been enhanced to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- with effect from 24.05.2010. Section 14 contains a provision: ‘With respect to override other enactments’ It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument on contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act. This provision provides that the Act shall override other enactments to the extent of any inconsistency contained in any other such enactments. It is thus evident that the Payment of Gratuity Act is a welfare legislation and, therefore, the benefit cannot be curtailed. 4. The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Som Prakash Rekhi Vs. Union of India and Anr. as reported in 1981 (1) SCC 449 needs to be referred wherein it has been held that benignate provision must receive a benignate construction and even if two interpretations are permissible, the beneficial object should be preferred, following observations made by His Lordships, “We live in a welfare State, in a socialist, republic, under a Constitution which profound concern for the weaker classes including workers. Welfare benefits such as pensions, payment of provident fund and gratuity are in fulfillment of the directive principles. The payment gratuity or provident fund should not occasion any deduction from the pension as a set-off. Otherwise, the solemn statutory provisions ensuring provident fund and gratuity become illusory. Pensions are paid out of the past meritorious services. The root of gratuity and the foundation of provident fund are different. The payment gratuity or provident fund should not occasion any deduction from the pension as a set-off. Otherwise, the solemn statutory provisions ensuring provident fund and gratuity become illusory. Pensions are paid out of the past meritorious services. The root of gratuity and the foundation of provident fund are different. Each one has a salutary benefaction statutorily guaranteed the provision has been made regarding entitlement of an employee for payment of amount of gratuity, which shall not exceed Rs.10,00,000/-and, therefore, the same is having its binding effect upon the taking into consideration the fact that parliament has enacted by making amendment in the quantum of a gratuity by exceeding Rs.3,50,000/-to 10,00,000/-by virtue of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 2010 (15 of 2010) wherein the payment has been enhanced from Rs.3,50,000/-to Rs.10,00,000/-with effect from 24.05.2010, therefore, it has been submitted that the petitioner has retired from service on 31.10.2010 and prior to his retirement the aforesaid amount has been brought into effect with effect from 24.05.2010 hence, he is entitled to get Rs.10,00,000/-not Rs.3,50,000/-, therefore, the difference of amount of gratuity is required to be paid by the respondent-Board. 5. Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board has submitted by placing reliance upon the resolution of the State Housing Board, Ranchi in its 29th Board’s Meeting dated 07.02.2011, by which the quantum of amount of gratuity has been enhanced with effect from 07.02.2011 and since the petitioner has retired prior to that he will not be entitled to get the aforesaid differential amount and, therefore, the writ petition is having no merit and hence, it may be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board while arguing the case on 03.12.2018 has sought for two weeks’ time to address the Court on the legal position, today, submission has been made that the appropriate order may be passed. 6. Heard, learned counsel for the respective parties. The issue raised by the petitioner regarding applicability of amendment brought in sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner’s claim is that he has retired on 31.10.2010 and before his retirement the amendment enhancing the claim of amount of gratuity has been enhanced from 3,50,000/-to 10,00,000/-therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit. Further, issue has been raised that the Payment of Gratuity Act, being the Central Legislation will prevail upon the resolution of the respondent Board. The petitioner’s claim is that he has retired on 31.10.2010 and before his retirement the amendment enhancing the claim of amount of gratuity has been enhanced from 3,50,000/-to 10,00,000/-therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit. Further, issue has been raised that the Payment of Gratuity Act, being the Central Legislation will prevail upon the resolution of the respondent Board. It would be relevant to deal with the statutory provision as contained in Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with its scope. The Payment of Gratuity Act has been made to regulate the industrial workers and to regulate the payment of gratuity. 7. The contentions raised by the Jharkhand Housing Board that since they have come out with a resolution on 07.02.2011 implementing the enhancement in quantum of amount of gratuity and, therefore, the petitioner since has retired prior to that he will not be entitled if any differential amount in pursuance to the aforesaid enhancement in quantum of the gratuity. In order to answer this issue, it will be relevant to quote Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which is as under: “14. Act to override other enactments, etc.-The provisions of this act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.” It is evident from Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which leave no room or any doubt regarding the status which has been vested in the Provision of Gratuity Act vis-a-vis any other enactment inconsistent therewith. Therefore, in so far as entitlement of an employee for gratuity is concerned, the same is to be regulated by the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The intent of the provision of Section 14 in the legislation is to make the provision of Gratuity Act, a superior to overrule other provisions including any entitlement or contract having inconsistent with the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act. Further, it needs to refer the implementation of provision of Article 254 of the Constitution of India which contains the provision of applicability of Central or State Act. Further, it needs to refer the implementation of provision of Article 254 of the Constitution of India which contains the provision of applicability of Central or State Act. Article 254 (1) of the Constitution of India stipulates that if any Act having been concurred and assented by His Excellency the President of India, the same would be applicable if any inconsistency or stock or insurgency is noticed between the provisions of the Central and the State Act. If the State Act has received the assent of the President, the State Act will prevail over the Central Act in the concerned State by virtue of provision of Article 254(2) of the Constitution but if the State Act has received assent of the Governor the Central Act would prevail over the State Act by virtue of Article 254 (1) of the Constitution. This issue has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment rendered in the case of Smt. K.A. Annamma Vs. Secretary, Cochin Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd. as reported in AIR 2018 SC 422 wherein as para nos. 95, 96 and 97 it has been held as under:- “95. The law in relation to Article 254 of the Constitution and how it is applied in a particular case is fairly well settled by the series of decisions of this Court. This Article is attracted in cases where the law is enacted by Parliament and the State Legislature on the same subject, which falls in List III - Concurrent List. 96. In such a situation arising in any case, if any inconsistency or/and repugnancy is noticed between the provisions of the Central and the State Act, which has resulted in their direct head on collusion with each other, which made it impossible to reconcile both the provisions to remain in operation inasmuch as if one provision is obeyed, the other would be disobeyed, the State Act, if it has received the assent of the President will prevail over the Central Act in the State concerned by virtue of Article 254(2) of the Constitution. 97. A fortiori, in such a situation, if the State Act has received the assent of the Governor then the Central Act would prevail over the State Act by virtue of Article 254(1) of the Constitution. 97. A fortiori, in such a situation, if the State Act has received the assent of the Governor then the Central Act would prevail over the State Act by virtue of Article 254(1) of the Constitution. It is, thus evident that if the State Government is making out a rule the same will have overriding effect upon the Central legislation if assented by the President in view of the provision of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. Thus, evident if any inconsistency or/and repugnancy is noticed between the provisions of the Central and the State Act, which has resulted in direct head on collusion with each other, the State Act, if it has received the Assent of the President will prevail over the Central Act in the concerned State by virtue of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. If the State Act has not received the assent of the Governor then the Central Act would prevail over the State Act by virtue of Article 254 (1) of the Constitution of India. Here in the instant case, the Board has come out with a resolution dated 07.02.2011 which is inconsistent with the amendment made by the Central Legislation under the provision of Sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. So far as it relates to implementation of date of disbursement of enhanced amount under the head of gratuity is concerned, the same would not prevail since the same has been issued by the Jharkhand State Housing Board. 8. It is settled proposition of law that the executive order cannot supplant the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such executive orders/instructions can only supplement the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this regard may be made in the case of Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Versus Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora and Anr. as reported in (2014) 8 SCC 644 . Here in the instant case, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India rather it is a Central Act and as such, which has been sought to be given go by the Jharkhand Housing Board, the same is contrary to the settled proposition of law. Here in the instant case, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India rather it is a Central Act and as such, which has been sought to be given go by the Jharkhand Housing Board, the same is contrary to the settled proposition of law. Admittedly, the State has not provided any Act in this regard rather the Jharkhand Housing Board is taking the plea of implementing the enhancement and the quantum of gratuity by virtue of the resolution dated 07.02.2011 and hence, even it is not as per the provision of Article 162 of the Constitution of India which confers power upon the Governor of the State to make policy decision by issuing executive instructions therein and, therefore, the resolution dated 07.02.2011 will not have any overriding effect over the Payment of Gratuity Act and its amendment made in Sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the aforesaid Act. Further, in view of the provision of Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 the resolution dated 07.02.2011 will not have any overriding effect upon the amendment made in Sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 9. In view of such legal position, the denial of the claim of the petitioner for enhanced amount of gratuity in pursuance to the amendment made in Subsection 3 of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be said to be legal and, therefore since the petitioner has retired on 31.10.2010 and the said amendment has been brought into effect with from 24.05.2010 therefore, on that date the amendment the petitioner was in roll of the service of the Board therefore, the said amendment will be applicable to the petitioner and accordingly, he will be entitled to get the enhanced amount of gratuity as per the aforesaid amendment. 10. In view thereof, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 11. Accordingly the same is allowed with a direction upon the Jharkhand Housing Board to disburse the differential amount in favour of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.