JUDGMENT : SUNIL THOMAS, J. 1. Respondent herein was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board, till his retirement from service on 1995. Thereafter, he practiced as a lawyer. While so, he was appointed as a member of the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, by notification dated 25.06.2007, for a period of 5 years. He completed his tenure on 25.06.2012, and was relieved from the Commission with effect from 25.06.2012. 2. The appellant Government, issued a notification dated 28.11.2016, No. 175/2016/Fin, by which, members of statutory commissions other than the Government employees were granted the benefit of pension subject to completion of minimum tenure of 2 years. The benefit was extended to persons who were appointed to the Commission after 01.01.2006. Respondent claimed the benefit through his various communications. In the meanwhile, by Government Order No. 120/2020/P&ARD dated 04.05.2020, the benefit of pension was given to 25 named persons. It was reiterated that the benefit was extended only to persons who were appointed to statutory commissions after 01.01.2006 and who were not Government employees. However, the name of the respondent did not find a place in the above notification. Accordingly, the respondent filed a representation claiming the benefit of pension. Since there was no positive response, he moved the Honourable Lok Ayukta by filing complaint No. 141 of 2020-C, claiming the benefit. The Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Thiruvananthapuram and the Registrar and Secretary, Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission were shown as the respondents. After hearing both sides, the Lok Ayukta, by its report dated 6th September 2021, rejected the objection of the Government that the respondent being an employee of the KSEB, was a Government employee and hence not entitled to claim the benefit of pension. Lok Ayukta held that, he was an employee of the KSEB, which was at the relevant time, a statutory board, constituted under the Indian Electricity Act 1948 and hence, it was not a part of the Government. Consequently, he could not be considered as an employee of the Government. It was held that the denial of benefits to the respondent on the ground that he was a Government employee was absolutely wrong and illegal. By the above report, it was held that the respondent herein was entitled for pension in the light of G.O. No. 175/2016/Fin, dated 28.11.2016. It was held that the denial of benefits to the respondent on the ground that he was a Government employee was absolutely wrong and illegal. By the above report, it was held that the respondent herein was entitled for pension in the light of G.O. No. 175/2016/Fin, dated 28.11.2016. It was recommended that the arrears of retirement benefits due to the complainant under the Government order shall be paid to the respondent herein within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the report. 3. Aggrieved by the above, the Government has preferred this appeal. The matter was heard in extenso at the time of admission on the short question as to whether the respondent herein, being an employee of KSEB could be treated as a Government employee and thereby, out of coverage of G.O. No. 175/2016/Fin, dated 28.11.2016. 4. Essentially, Lok Ayukta, to sustain its conclusion that the petitioner was not an employee of the Government relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in K.S.E. Board vs. R. Mohankumar, 2008 KHC 4840. The applicability of the above decision was assailed by the learned senior Government Pleader on the premise that the findings entered into by the Division Bench in that case was essentially in relation to the claim of gratuity and the crucial question herein, was not the subject matter in issue in the Division Bench decision. It was contended that the Bench decision was on a totally different factual and legal premise and hence, cannot be extended to the benefit of the respondent herein. 5. There is no dispute that KSEB, during the relevant time was a statutory authority. In KSEB vs. R. Mohankumar (supra), the question was regarding the claim of gratuity to the employees of KSEB. Learned Single Judge whose judgment was assailed before the Division Bench by the Government, relying on the dicta of the Honourable Supreme Court in and Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Dharam Prakash Sharma and Another, 1998 (7) SCC 221 had held that the benefit of payment of Gratuity Act was liable to be extended to the claimants therein. Assailing this, the prime contention set up by the KSEB before the Division Bench was that, in view of Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, the employee of the Corporation was none other than an employee of the State Government. Assailing this, the prime contention set up by the KSEB before the Division Bench was that, in view of Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, the employee of the Corporation was none other than an employee of the State Government. Hence, it was held that the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be made applicable to them. After referring to the legal aspects, the Division Bench held that the definition of an employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act was wide enough to include an employee of Kerala State Electricity Board, since it was an “establishment.” The Bench held that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that an employee working in KSEB was an employee of the State Government and therefore the payment of Gratuity Act cannot be made applicable to him does not have any merit at all. It was affirmed that, employees of Corporation, by no stretch of imagination, could be an employee of the State Government. It was further held that the law on the point was well settled. 6. Evidently, the question whether the employees of the Board are Government employees was the crucial question that came up before the Division Bench. It was answered in negative holding that, they were not. Hence, there cannot be any doubt that employees of the KSEB cannot be considered as Government employees. This principle, which has become final, in the absence of any challenge was correctly applied by the Lok Ayukta. Hence, we find no reason to hold a different view. The report of learned Lok Ayukta is not assailable and is liable to be confirmed by us. 7. The writ petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.