JUDGMENT : V.G.ARUN, J. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein seeking a direction to his employer; the KSRTC, to disburse the gratuity amount due to him with interest. The petitioner retired from the service of the KSRTC on 31.1.2007. Even though the monthly pension, commuted value of pension and provident fund amount were sanctioned to the petitioner on his retirement, the death-cum-retirement gratuity was not sanctioned for the reason that a loan availed by another employee, to which the petitioner had stood guarantee, was in arrears, for the recovery of which proceedings had been initiated by the KSFE; the appellant herein. The demand for gratuity was opposed by the KSRTC on the ground that the petitioner had given a consent letter, agreeing for recovering the arrears from the petitioner's retirement benefits and that the Kerala Service Rules being applicable to the employees of the KSRTC, recovery from gratuity can be effected from the petitioner based on his consent, as provided under Ruling No.1 in Part III Rule 3 KSR. It was also contended that the KSRTC is exempted from the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and hence, was not under any statutory obligation to disburse the gratuity, in spite of the outstanding liability. 2. The learned Single Judge relied on the decision in Kunju Mohammed V.A v. KSFE Ltd and others [2009 (4)KHC 185] to hold that even if there is consent/agreement from the employee, that will be valid only with respect to recovery of terminal benefits other than gratuity, because gratuity stands on a different footing and is free from attachment. It was also held that in view of Sections 13 and 14 of the Gratuity Act, the provisions of the Gratuity Act would apply, in spite of the employer being exempted under Section 5 of the Act. Based on the findings, the writ petition was allowed declaring that the DCRG amount due from the KSRTC to the petitioner cannot be attached or withheld to satisfy the arrears, if any, due to the KSFE. Consequently, the KSRTC was directed to disburse the amount of DCRG due to the petitioner. It was clarified that the judgment will not stand in the way of the KSFE and the revenue recovery authorities proceeding against the personal assets of the petitioner for recovery of the arrears of loan amount. 3. Consequently, the KSRTC was directed to disburse the amount of DCRG due to the petitioner. It was clarified that the judgment will not stand in the way of the KSFE and the revenue recovery authorities proceeding against the personal assets of the petitioner for recovery of the arrears of loan amount. 3. The writ appeal is preferred, aggrieved by the declaration that the DCRG due to the petitioner cannot be attached or withheld to satisfy the arrears due to the KSFE. 4. The challenge in the appeal is on the ground that, having submitted Ext.R2(a) employment certificate, countersigned by his Controlling Officer, agreeing for recovery of the loan arrears, if any, from his salary or terminal benefits, the petitioner cannot demand for disbursal of his DCRG without settling the loan. In support of this challenge, reliance is placed on a Single Bench decision in Manni v. DivisionalForest Officer and another[2008 (4) KHC 894]. It is also contended that the KSRTC being exempted from the provisions of the Gratuity Act, Sections 13 of the Act will not be a bar for effecting recovery from the petitioner's DCRG. The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Secretary,ONGC Ltd and another v. V.U.Warrier [ (2005) 5 SCC 245 ], is pressed into service to buttress the argument. It is further contended that the Kerala Service Rules having been made applicable to the KSRTC, recovery from gratuity can be effected from an employee who has given his consent in writing, in terms of Ruling No.1 of Rule 3 Part III KSR. It is pointed out that the petitioner admits of having given his consent in writing, albeit under compulsion. 5. Heard Smt. Surya Binoy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.T.P.Sajan, learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC, Sri.D.Sajeev, learned counsel for the party respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 6. The facts involved in Manni's case, as discernible from the judgment are that Manni was a Government employee and had stood surety for a loan, for which purpose he had given consent to the KSFE for effecting recovery from his retirement benefits, if so required. It was in such circumstances that the learned Single Judge held the recovery to be proper in view of Ruling No.1 of Rule 3 Part III KSR. In this context, it may be apposite to extract Ruling No.1 of Rule 3 Part III KSR:- “1. It was in such circumstances that the learned Single Judge held the recovery to be proper in view of Ruling No.1 of Rule 3 Part III KSR. In this context, it may be apposite to extract Ruling No.1 of Rule 3 Part III KSR:- “1. If, the liabilities could not be finalised but could be estimated at the time of retirement, pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity will be released after accepting a surety bond or cash deposit or after withholding from the death-cum-retirement gratuity the estimated amount of the outstanding dues plus 25 percent thereof.” 7. Manni being a Government employee, it was held that Ruling No.1 would apply. Further, it was also noticed that the definition of the term 'employee' in Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, specifically exclude persons holding a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity. The petitioner having been an employee of the KSRTC, Ruling No.1 cannot be pressed into service for the purpose of effecting recovery from his DCRG, by reason of the KSR being made applicable to the employees of the KSRTC. 8. It is a fact that the KSRTC has been exempted from the provisions of the Gratuity Act by the Government in exercise of power under Section 5 of the Act. The moot question is as to whether the provisions of the Gratuity Act apply even to such exempted establishments. To answer this question, we refer to Sections 13 and 14 of the Act, which are extracted hereunder: “13. Protection of gratuity No gratuity payable under this Act and no gratuity payable to an employee employed in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop exempted under section 5 shall be liable to attachment in execution of any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal court. 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.” 9. 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.” 9. It was through an amendment brought about to Section 13 with effect from 1.7.1984, [by addition of the underlined portion in the extract] that the interdiction against attachment of gratuity was made applicable even for establishments exempted under Section 5. Hence, whether exempted or not, gratuity of an employee is not liable to be attached. Here we again notice the distinction that a Government Servant is excluded specifically by the definition clause of employee, which is an exemption under the Act itself, while the exemption to an establishment under Section 5 is one granted by the Government, invoking the power conferred on it so to do by the enactment. 10. Section 14 makes the provisions of the Act effective, notwithstanding anything inconsistent with the provisions, in any enactment or any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than the Gratuity Act. The applicability of Payment of Gratuity Act with respect to an establishment having its own service regulations containing a provision for withholding of gratuity had come up for consideration before the Honourable Supreme Court in Y.K.Singla v. Punjab National Bank [ (2013) 3 SCC 472 ], the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:- “20. …....A perusal of S.14 leaves no room for any doubt, that a superior status has been vested in the provisions of the Gratuity Act, vis-a- vis, any other enactment (including any other instrument or contract) inconsistent therewith. Therefore, insofar as the entitlement of an employee to gratuity is concerned, it is apparent that in cases where gratuity of an employee is not regulated under the provisions of the Gratuity Act, the legislature having vested superiority to the provisions of the Gratuity Act over all other provisions/enactments (including any instrument or contract having the force of law), the provisions of the Gratuity Act cannot be ignored. The term “instrument” and the phrase “instrument or contract having the force of law” shall most definitely be deemed to include the 1995 Regulations, which regulate the payment of gratuity to the appellant.” Hence, the fact that KSRTC has been exempted from the provisions of the Gratuity Act or the fact that the petitioner had given consent for effecting recovery from DCRG would not, either entitle the employer to withhold his DCRG or enable the appellant to effect recovery. 11. The decision in Secretary, ONGC Ltd and another v. V.U.Warrier [ (2005) 5 SCC 245 ], cited by the learned counsel for the appellant was rendered on the basis of distinct set of facts. In that decision, the Honourable Supreme Court was considering the definition of 'employee' in the Payment of Gratuity Act, as it existed in 1990. At that point of time, the term 'employee' meant 'any person employed on wages, not exceeding two thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem'. The salary of the employee concerned was rupees six thousand eight hundred and it was therefore held that he could not be termed as an employee covered by the definition. Considering the responsible position which the employee held in the ONGC, the Supreme Court went observed that the employee was a 'gold collar' employee of the ONGC and hence, interference by the High Court in favour of the officer by exercising its extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction was unwarranted. 12. The primacy of the provisions of the Gratuity Act over other enactments, instruments or contracts being no longer res integra, the findings in the impugned judgment are only to be affirmed. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. The DCRG due to the writ petitioner shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7% from 31.1.2007 to the date of payment. No order as to costs.