JUDGMENT : 1. All the above cases relate to the applicability and entitlement of the Gramin Dak Sewaks i.e. Extra Departmental Agents to receive gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') or whether they are governed by the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, which came into force on 18.4.2011 in supercession of the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2001. For convenience, the above cases are divided into two categories. The first batch of cases are of the Gramin Dak Sewaks who retired after 18.4.2011 and the second batch of employees who retired prior to 18.4.2011 when the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2001 was in force. By the orders impugned in these cases, the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, found that all the employees are entitled to gratuity as they are covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and had allowed their claims as prayed for. 2. The first batch deals with cases covered by Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 and comprise of the following cases. 3. The issues involved in these cases are whether the Postal Department is an establishment under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also whether a Gramin Dak Sewak is an “employee” as per Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 Act, and is entitled to payment of gratuity under the said Act? The questions are no loner res integra as the issue raised in the above cases is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices vs. Gurusewak Singh and Others, 2019 KHC 6339. The questions are no loner res integra as the issue raised in the above cases is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices vs. Gurusewak Singh and Others, 2019 KHC 6339. S. No. Case No. Name of the employee Date of engagement Date of disengagement 1 WP (C) 21971/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam P Ananthakrishna Pillai 22.6.1983 25.10.2013 2 WP (C) 22734/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam S. Sivankutty 31.12.1969 04.05.2016 3 WP (C) 21054/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam B. Shankari Amma 03.04.1974 19.2.2015 4 WP (C) 21667/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam D. Babu 31.1.1995 19.9.2016 5 WP (C) 20693/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam D. Sushamadevi 28.1.2016 10.07.1979 6 WP (C) 24084/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam L. Rohinikutty 25.7.1995 14.1.2014 7 WP (C) 25880/2017 Filed by Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanmathitta Division, Pathanamthitta Elizabeth David 07.05.1979 30.11.2014 8 WP (C) 26342/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam K. Kumari 06.02.1981 07.01.2016 9 WP (C) 20865/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam K. Amminikutty 22.7.1983 09.06.2015 10 WP (C) 21161/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam R. Aravindakshan Pillai 09.10.1985 13.04.2016 11 WP (C) 22970/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam N. Sivadasan 08.08.1985 22.4.2016 12 WP (C) 22337/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam Indirabai Amma 02.08.1993 19.01.2016 13 WP (C) 23121/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam K. Sundaresan Assari 27.6.1996 18.5.2013 14 WP (C) 23821/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam Safia Beevi 07.03.1987 19.3.2015 15 WP (C) 25227/2017 Filed by Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta Division, Pathanamthitta N. Gopalkrishnan Nair 24.9.1980 10.02.2016 16 WP (C) 31155/2017 Filed by Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta Division, Pathanamthitta D. Kunjukunju 14.4.1984 21.3.2016 17 WP (C) 31522/2017 Filed by Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta Division, Pathanamthitta P. Radhamoni Amma 22.12.82 27.7.2015 18 WA 1926/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,Kollam Division, Kollam District N. Rajan Pillai 16.4.1980 13.12.2011 4. The decision of the Supreme Court in Gurusewak Singh held that the Post and Telegraphs Department would be an establishment under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as the Postal Department is an establishment under Section 2(k) of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, and going by Section 1(3)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, it applies to every 'establishment' within the meaning of 'any law' for the time being in force and as the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 would fall under the expression 'law' under Section 1(3)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 5. The next issue that arose before the Supreme Court was whether a Gramin Dak Sewak is an “employee” as per Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 Act and is entitled to payment of gratuity under the said Act? Construing the definition of employee under 2(e) of the 1972 Act, the court found that the Act excluded persons who held a post with the Central or State Government and are governed by any other Act or rules providing for payment of gratuity. Since the 2011 Rules had a separate provision for payment of gratuity to the Extra Departmental Agents, it was found that a Gramin Dak Sewak is not an “employee” under the 1972 Act. The further issue considered was whether the Gramin Dak Sewak is eligible for payment of gratuity under the 2011 Rules upon voluntary resignation under the 2011 Rules. The Supreme Court found that as a consequence of such resignation, the employee became dis-entitled for the payment of gratuity under the Statutory 2011 Rules applicable to Gramin Dak Sewaks. 6. In the light of the position of law declared by the Supreme Court in the above judgment, it has to be held that those employees whose cases are covered by the 2011 Rules, namely, whose service ended after the Rules came into force, are not entitled to payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act but will be entitled for payment of gratuity under the 2011 Rules. Accordingly, the orders passed by the controlling authority in these writ petitions are quashed. The employees will be entitled to get the eligible gratuity under the 2011 Rules and the authority concerned will make the payment without delay as there is no dispute on the date of joining, date of relieving or on the last drawn pay. 7. Accordingly, the orders passed by the controlling authority in these writ petitions are quashed. The employees will be entitled to get the eligible gratuity under the 2011 Rules and the authority concerned will make the payment without delay as there is no dispute on the date of joining, date of relieving or on the last drawn pay. 7. The second batch deals with cases covered by Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2001. The cases coming under the said Rules are the following: S. No. Case No. Name of the employee Date of engagement Date of disengagement 1 WA 1854/2017 Filed by Superintendent of Post Offices, Changanassery Division, Changanassery P.M. Nabeeza 25.7.1968 10.07.2009 2 WA 1848/2017 Filed by Superintendent of Post Offices, Mavelikkara Division, Mavelikkara Leelamony Amma 07.02.1984 23.8.2008 3 WA 1065/2017 Filed by Superintendent of Post Offices, Idukki Division,Thodupuzha & another K.V. Mary 04.10.1996 31.12.2007 4 WA 1688/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta Division, Pathanamthitta District T.N. Gomathy 24.2.1972 07.04.2010 5 WA 2389/2017 Filed by Superintendent of Post Offices, Vadakra Division, Vadakara K.V. Cheriyan 22.12.1969 26.9.2009 6 WA 1549/2017 Filed by Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta Division, Pathanamthitta District L. Devakiamma 29.10.1971 25.5.2010 7 WA 912/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam District R. Omana 18.12.1979 15.03.2010 8 WA 1849/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam District S. Sheela 05.05.1981 11.12.2007 9 WA 1850/2017 Filed by Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam District C.K. Gopakumaran Pillai 17.1.1982 30.4.2009 10 WA 705/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Idukki Division, Thodupuzha and another C.P. Abhraham 30.6.1983 18.4.2005 11 WP (C) 21816/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam P. Gopalan 11.2.1977 31.10.2009 12 WA 1925/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam District N. Thankappan 14.1.1976 15.4.2011 8. With respect to the second batch of cases, the learned single Judge in the impugned judgments from which the writ appeal arise had found that they are entitled to payment of gratuity under the 1972 Act. Two contentions were raised by the Postal Department before the learned single Judge, namely, applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the contention based on the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. Two contentions were raised by the Postal Department before the learned single Judge, namely, applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the contention based on the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. The learned single Judge found that the Postal Department has to be seen as an establishment as referred to in Section 1(3)(b)of the Payment of Gratuity Act and repelled the argument on behalf of the Postal Department that it cannot be treated as an establishment under the Act. On the second question whether the terms and conditions of the appointment would take away the right of the employees to claim gratuity in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act., it was found that even if the 2011 Rules are found to be applicable, it was the option of the employee to choose the better service conditions regarding payment of gratuity in terms of Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, and the employee had the option to decide the same. In that view of the matter, it was found that the Payment of Gratuity Act applies to the employees. With respect to the cases covered under 2001 Rules, it is pertinent to note that there is no provision for gratuity under the said Rules. 9. The conclusion of the learned single Judge that the Act applies has to be upheld going by the parity of the reasoning in the decision in Gurusewak Singh and others (supra). We however, vacate the finding of the learned single Judge that the employees had two options even if the 2011 Rules apply in view of Section 4(5) of the Act. This finding is wrong for two reasons as the 2011 Rules would not apply to those who retired prior to 18.4.2011 and the 2001 Rules that did apply did not provide for payment of gratuity. We say this because although there were office memorandums issued to enable payment of gratuity to the employees, the payment of gratuity was in the nature of an ex-gratia payment at the discretion of the employer. It was only in the 2011 Rules that the payment of ex-gratia gratuity attained the nature of the right of the retiring employee that he could claim from the employer. It was only in the 2011 Rules that the payment of ex-gratia gratuity attained the nature of the right of the retiring employee that he could claim from the employer. The applicability of Section 4(5) of the Act would come in only if there are two options available to employees to claim gratuity as of right and in the instant case there was only one option i.e., to get the gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Thus the writ appeals preferred against the judgment of learned single Judge and also the writ petitions of the employees, who retired prior to coming into force of the 2011 Rules, has to succeed and those orders of the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act are to be upheld. 10. In the result, in the first batch of cases WP (C) Nos. 21971/2017, 20693/2017, 20865/2017, 21054/2017, 21161/2017, 21667/2017, 22337/2017, 22734/2017, 22970/2017, 23121/2017, 23821/2017, 24084/2017, 25227/2017, 25880/2017, 26342/2017, 31155/2017, 31522/2017 and WA No. 1926/2017 are allowed and the orders of the controlling authority under the Act, 1972, impugned in the above cases are quashed. 11. In the second batch of cases, WA Nos. 705/2017, 912/2017, 1065/2017, 1549/2017, 1688/2017, 1848/2017, 1849/2017, 1850/2017, 1854/2017, 1925/2017, 2389/2017 and WP (C) No. 21816/2017 are dismissed.