JUDGMENT : R. Devdas, J. 1. The petitioners in these batch of writ petitions are the employees of third respondent-BEML Limited, which is a Public Sector undertaking. Petitioner No. 1 in W.P. Nos. 36530-36708/2016 is the Association of employees of BEML. The petitioners have worked as Executives with the respondent-BEML Limited. All the petitioners have retired from service between the period 01.01.2007 to 23.05.2010. 2. The Union of India had appointed Pay Revision Committee comprising of a Former Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Justice Shri M. Jagannadha Rao, as Chairman along with other eminent committee members to recommend revision of pay and allowances for Board level and below Board level executives and non-unsigned supervisors in Central Public Sector Enterprises. The Pay Revision Committee, after deliberations, submitted a report to the Government of India which was processed and approved by the Government. Thereafter, general directions were issued by the Union of India to all the administrative ministries and Public Sector Undertakings. This was followed by Presidential Directives issued by the Administrative Ministry for implementation. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, issued an Official Memorandum dated 26.11.2008 regarding revision of pay scales with effect from 01.01.2007 for a period of ten years. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that Clause (3) of the Official Memorandum dated 26.11.2008 pertains to enhancement of ceiling of gratuity of the Executives and non-unisoned supervisors which was enhanced from Rs. 3.5 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs with effect from 01.01.2007. Thereafter, the first respondent issued one more Official Memorandum dated 02.04.2009, directing all the Public Sector Undertakings including the third respondent-BEML to follow the directions given therein about the acceptance of the revision of pay scales and other benefits from 01.01.2007. Following the second Official Memorandum, the Board of Directors of the respondent-BEML, in the 283rd meeting held on 29.04.2009 passed a resolution approving the implementation of revised scales of pay with fitment benefits and also authorized the Chairman and Managing Director to take up with the Ministry for issuance of Presidential Directives. Following the second Official Memorandum, the Board of Directors of the respondent-BEML, in the 283rd meeting held on 29.04.2009 passed a resolution approving the implementation of revised scales of pay with fitment benefits and also authorized the Chairman and Managing Director to take up with the Ministry for issuance of Presidential Directives. It is further contended by the petitioners that the second respondent-Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 30.04.2009, on the basis of the resolution passed by the Board, informed the third respondent-BEML that the revision of pay scales and other benefits as contained in the Official Memorandum dated 26.11.2008 and as amended from time to time, has been accepted and the Presidential Directives are issued for implementation with effect from 01.01.2007. It is further contended by the petitioners that the communication made by the second respondent-Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 30.04.2009 was also accompanied by a letter of even date with a directive to the third respondent to implement the Presidential Directives. 4. The petitioners further contended that it was conveyed by the third respondent to respondents No. 1 and 2 that the Management and Board of Directors after examining the affordability had recommended for issuance of Presidential Directives and therefore, the third respondent cannot contend that the Board never indicated that gratuity ceiling enhanced to Rs. 10 lakhs was not agreeable to the Board of Directors. 5. Some of the petitioners approached the Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in January 2014 and their claim was rejected by an order dated 23.12.2014. The Controlling Authority held that Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, was amended by the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2010 dated 07.05.2010 which provided for enhancement of gratuity amount from Rs. 3.5 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs with effect from 24.05.2010, while the applicants had retired well before the amendment and therefore the same would not be applicable to the applicants therein. 6. Shri S.N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are not laying the claim under the Gratuity Act, but are invoking the directions issued in the Official Memorandum dated 26.11.2008 and 02.04.2009. 6. Shri S.N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are not laying the claim under the Gratuity Act, but are invoking the directions issued in the Official Memorandum dated 26.11.2008 and 02.04.2009. The learned Senior Counsel draws the attention of this Court to a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of State Farms Corporation of India Limited vs. P.S. Gupta in W.P. (C) No. 907/2013 which was decided on 01.07.2014. In that case, the retired Executives requested the employer to pay the difference in the gratuity amount i.e. Rs. 6,50,000/- in terms of the Official Memorandum and Presidential Directives. The employer did not accede to the request on the ground that they are not entitled to gratuity as per the Act, which has already been paid to them. Similar reasons were assigned stating that Section 4(3) of the Act was amended with effect from 24.05.2010, while the Executives had retired well before the amendment. Thereafter, an application was made before the Controlling Authority and the Controlling Authority allowed the claim of the Executives thereby declaring that the employer/Executive is entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- which is the difference amount, along with interest at 10% p.a. from the date gratuity became payable. 7. Having considered the submissions on both the sides, the Delhi High Court has noted that Official Memorandum dated 26.11.20008 is very clear. The said Official Memorandum was issued pursuant to the recommendations made by a Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, wherein the substantive issue was with regard to pay revision of employees of the Public Sector undertakings. Clauses (3) and (17) of the Official Memorandum were considered at length. Clause-3 provides for affordability for implementation of pay revision, while Clause-17 deals with issuance of Presidential Directive, effective date of implementation and payment of allowances etc. It was held that the question which needs to be answered is whether the affordability has to be seen with regard to the pay revision only or with regard to other benefits including gratuity. The answer was that the affordability needs to be seen with regard to every benefit. It was held that the question which needs to be answered is whether the affordability has to be seen with regard to the pay revision only or with regard to other benefits including gratuity. The answer was that the affordability needs to be seen with regard to every benefit. With regard to the Clause (3), it was clearly held that the revised pay scales would be adopted subject to the condition that the additional outgo by such revision for a period of 12 months should not result in more than 20% dip in profit before tax for the year 2007-08 of Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSE). The Delhi High Court held that unfortunately, the affordability has been considered only with respect to the revision of pay scales and not with regard to other benefits including gratuity. It was expected from the Board to consider the affordability of each benefit, atleast, those to be given from 01.01.2007 keeping in view the parameters laid down in Official Memorandum dated 26.11.2009. As a result, the Delhi High Court directed the Board of the petitioner organization to consider the report submitted by the Controlling authority and take a view on the payment of enhanced gratuity to the respondent therein. It was made clear that such a direction was required to be issued, in view of the conclusion drawn by the Court about the affordability of grant of enhanced gratuity having not been considered by the Board before sending the case for approval of the Ministry of Agriculture. 8. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in the case of State Farms Corporation of India Limited (supra), the Delhi High Court held that it was clear from the records placed before the Court that the balance profit before tax was within the permissible limit of 20% which is sufficient and additional dip of approximately 2.98% in the year 2007-08 may be recouped, and the enhanced gratuity could be paid in terms of the Official Memorandum dated 26.11.2008. However, inspite of such a conclusion, the Delhi High Court thought it fit to direct the employer to reconsider the representation made by the employees/Executives, in the light of the observations made therein. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submits that similar directions need to be issued in these writ petitions also. 9. However, inspite of such a conclusion, the Delhi High Court thought it fit to direct the employer to reconsider the representation made by the employees/Executives, in the light of the observations made therein. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submits that similar directions need to be issued in these writ petitions also. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsels for the respondents would submit that in another case decided by the Uttarakhand High Court, the Division Bench has rejected similar contentions raised by employees. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Bansidar Joshi and Others vs. Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Ltd. and Others, (2016) LABIC 791. Reliance is also placed on another judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Limited, Post ECIL, Hyderabad, Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director vs. The Controlling Authority, 2016 SCC Online (Hyd) 336 under P.G. Act, 1972. 10. With regard to the case of Bansidar Joshi (supra), the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is a case where the claim is made under the Gratuity Act and in the case of Electronics Corporation of India (supra), the Court came to the conclusion that the employer did not have the affordability in terms of the Official Memorandum and therefore, the decisions went against the employees. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Official Memorandum is, in fact, a general guideline and cannot be forced upon the employer. 11. Having heard the learned Counsels and perusing the records and on going through the judgments cited by the learned Counsels, this Court is of the opinion that in the case on hand, the order passed by the Controlling Authority stating that the petitioners are not entitled to receive the difference in gratuity since the amendment to Section 4(3) was brought about in the year 2010, while the petitioners had retired well before the amendment came into force, cannot be countenanced. As held in the case of the Delhi High Court, the Presidential Directive, pursuant to the Official Memorandum dated 26.11.2008 and 02.04.2009, the concerned CPSEs were required to determine the affordability which again depended upon its percentage of profit but not more than 20% dip in 2007-2008 to implement the pay revision and gratuity. 12. As held in the case of the Delhi High Court, the Presidential Directive, pursuant to the Official Memorandum dated 26.11.2008 and 02.04.2009, the concerned CPSEs were required to determine the affordability which again depended upon its percentage of profit but not more than 20% dip in 2007-2008 to implement the pay revision and gratuity. 12. The third respondent-BEML is required to reconsider its opinion in the light of the observations made by the Delhi High Court and having regard to its affordability as provided under Clause (3) of the Official Memorandum dated 26.11.2008, and pass an order on the requisition made by the petitioners herein. 13. The memorandum of writ petitions itself may be considered as a request made by the petitioners and the third respondent-BEML is directed to reconsider the prayer made by the petitioners, in the light of the observations made above. The petitioners have served the respondent-BEML for more than 30 years and have retired way back in the year 2007-2010. In that view of the matter, the third respondent-BEML is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the third respondent eventually holds that the petitioners are to be given the difference in the gratuity amount, the third respondent shall also pay the same with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. till the date of actual payment. 14. The petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. 15. In view of the above, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same stand disposed of.