"... Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Govt to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decision of this Court (Supreme Court of India) valuable right and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited -with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment... . " 2. The aforesaid observation is not an appeal to the conscience but a law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 12 years agon the aforesaid observation was made by the Supreme Court of India ic the State of Kerala & others vs. M. Padmanabha Nair reported in (1985) 1 SCC 429 . c The petitioner served as a Lecturer of Gauhati University and retired as Reader in Applied Botony and Biotechnology on 19.1.90. By a letter the Registrar, Gauhati University intimated the petitioner in the following way : "... While intimating the date of superannuation falls on 19.1.90 on attainment of 60 years of age, I am to state that this University will remain thankful to you for your long and sincere services. The matter relating to your retirement benefits etc will be dealt with in due course. With kind regard,...." 3. By letter dated 2.1.1990 the petitioner wrote to the Registrar, Gauhati University reciprocating the sentiment from his end in the following line : "... Thankyou for your laudatory expression while intimating my date of superannuation from this University service. The virus of your sentiments as expressed in that letter has also affected me. No doubt the employer employee relationship between this University and me is coming to an end soon but the mutual respect and trust I am sure, will go beyond this relationship. Finally I request you to settle my retirement benefits and other money matters by a reasonably early date. With personal regards...." Despite expression of sentiment by the parties in the aforesaid two letters the relation broke down and the said relation did not last long. Because of delay in payment of the retiral benefit and petitioner started issuing legal notices from his end, demanding the gratuity along with 15% interest thereon. With personal regards...." Despite expression of sentiment by the parties in the aforesaid two letters the relation broke down and the said relation did not last long. Because of delay in payment of the retiral benefit and petitioner started issuing legal notices from his end, demanding the gratuity along with 15% interest thereon. On 1.10.92 the Registrar of Gauhati University issued the following office orders : "Office of the Registrar : Gauhati University : Guwahati, Personnel Department (Establishment 'T' Branch) Office Order Dated the 1st October, 1992. Administrative order for release of gratuity money payable to Sri RN Goswami, Retd Reader in Applied Botony and Biotechnology, GU is hereby released. Sd/- NC Bhuyan, Registrar Gauhati University. Memo No.ESTT/T/133/92/106/-70 Dated 1.10.92 Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to : 1. The Treasurer, GU with a request to submit a proposal to the Registrar for approval of the EC. 2. The Secretary, U/Classes, GU. 3. Sri RN Goswami, Retd Reader in Applied Botony and Biotechnology, GU Sundarbari, Guwahati -14. 4. Personal fife. Sd/- Registrar, Gauhati University..." Though it is shown as release order virtually it was only a proposal which will appear from the entrustment of the Registrar to the Treasurer of the Gauhati University with a request to submit a proposal to the Registrar for the approval of the Executive Council. The matter was taken up before the Executive Council as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents and Executive Council sanctioned the gratuity on 11.1.93 by letter dated 19.5.93. The Treasurer of the Gauhati University informed the petitioner that the cheque for the gratuity is ready for payment. On receipt of the said letter on 21.5.93 the petitioner contacted the office of the respondent No.4, the Treasurer and finally cheque was handed over to him on 5.6.93 vide cheque No.791428 dated 10.5.93 for an amount of Rs.68,825/-. As per the minute of the Executive Council meeting the gratuity of the petitioner was computed and settled at Rs. 72,000/- being gratuity for his 29 years 5 months 9 days service as per Gauhati University Retirement Benefit Rules, 1974. In a most unjust manner Rs.3,175/- was deducted therefrom. As per the minute of the Executive Council meeting the gratuity of the petitioner was computed and settled at Rs. 72,000/- being gratuity for his 29 years 5 months 9 days service as per Gauhati University Retirement Benefit Rules, 1974. In a most unjust manner Rs.3,175/- was deducted therefrom. Petitioner also stated that even after his retirement he was reemployed in the Department of Applied Botony and Biotechnology, Gauhati University on the basis of the letter dated 9.1.90 and accepted the said offer and worked under reemloyment upto the end of the current academic session i.e. 1990. By another letter dated 11.8.90 the petitioner Was again appointed as Guest Lecturer in Applied Botony and Biotechnology on a remuneration of Rs.100/- per lecture subject to maximum of Rs.2,000/- per month with effect from his date of joining for a period of two months. By another letter dated 22.11.90 from Registrar, Gauhati University petitioner was appointed as Guest Lecturer in the same terms and condition for academic session, 1991. By letter dated 2.9.91, petitioner expressed his desire to vacate residential quarter No.37 allotted to him which he was so long occupying and requested, Registrar, Gauhati University for making appropriate arrangement for taking the charge of the aforesaid quarter on behalf of the University. By the said letter he further requested the Registrar to release his gratuity and other payments and also requested Registrar about the payment of an) dues he has to pay to the University. In the paper book a letter from the said registrar addressed to the petitioner is found whereby the petitioner requested to take necessary action to vacate the quarter accordingly. And the Estate Officer by his letter dated 28.9.91 informed the Registrar, Gauhati University that the petitioner has vacated the Teacher Quarter No.37 on 22.9.91. 4. On being aggrieved by the delay payment of gratuity and also deduction of the gratuity the petitioner moved this Court for appropriate relief. 5. The respondents in their affidavit stated that since petitioner was occupying allotted quarter after his long retirement gratuity could not be settled before finalising the amount of rent and Electric Charges. Respondents also stated that notice by the petitioner required information about the outstanding liabilities since not furnished, it also took sometime. 5. The respondents in their affidavit stated that since petitioner was occupying allotted quarter after his long retirement gratuity could not be settled before finalising the amount of rent and Electric Charges. Respondents also stated that notice by the petitioner required information about the outstanding liabilities since not furnished, it also took sometime. Respondents also stated in their affidavit that though the order for release of gratuity was passed on 1.10.92 the said amount could not be actually paid by the Treasurer because the petitioner had over stayed in the University Quarter and the Executive Council had to decided the amount of penal rent recovery from him and also for the ground that the Executive Council being the pay master it had to approve and sanction the payment of gratuity. It is also averred that besides the aforesaid reasons the University was also facing acute financial crunch for the last several years and his gratuity was paid by means of overdraft from the State Bank of India at a very high rate of interest. From the affidavit it transpires that the basic reasons for not paying the gratuity was due to the occupation of the University Quarter till 22.9.91. It is also averred that normally employees are entitled to stay in Quarter upto 3 months from the date of his superannuation. But in the instant case the petitioner occupied the quarter for 21 months after retirement at nominal rent. The respondents also averred that the deduction of Rs.3,175/- was done as normal procedure followed in such cases. It was also averred by the respondent specifically that so long as the petitioner stayed in the quarter the gratuity could not be paid as he did not deposit the monthly rent in cash. If the gratuity would lave been paid while he was occupying the quarter "the University would be left with no alternative to realise the outstanding from him". From the affidavit it appears that University withheld the gratuity as a security for rent in question. 5. I have heard Mr. SP Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who submits that since the petitioner is 'entitled for retiral benefit as a matter of right and the delay in payment of gratuity is due to the default respondents, the respondents are bound to compensate the petitioner. Mr. 5. I have heard Mr. SP Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who submits that since the petitioner is 'entitled for retiral benefit as a matter of right and the delay in payment of gratuity is due to the default respondents, the respondents are bound to compensate the petitioner. Mr. Roy also submits that in the circumstances, University cannot be justified for not paying gratuity within reasonable time. The deduction of Rs.3,175/- from the gratuity is illegal and unauthorised and the said deduction was made in total violation of principles of natural justice and on that account purported deduction is illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. Mr. RL Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the action of delayed payment of gratuity on the ground of not vacating the quarter in time. Mr.Yadav, also submits that under Rules for the time being in force there is no time limit in payment of gratuity and accordingly no error has been committed by the University in not taking prompt payment of gratuity. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel also submits that other reason for non payment of delayed gratuity is non payment of rent by the petitioner. Mr.Yadav, learned counsel further submits that since the law relating to the payment of gratuity in the Gauhati University does not provide any interest in the absence of any contract the question of payment of interest does not arise. In this regard Mr. Yadav referred the following cases reported in AIR 1963 SC 1985, AIR 1966 SC 275 (295) and AIR 1994 SC 1484 . 7. Payment of gratuity is not a charity but a responsibility cast on the employer by statute. According to University's own law an employee is entitled for gratuity if he has completed 5 years of qualifying service at the University according to the scale of gratuity indicated in Schedule C. These gratuity shall be payable on his superannuation from service of the University. In the event of his demise this gratuity shall be payable to the nominee or nominees in the manner prescribed. Payment of gratuity cannot be linked up with unauthorised occupation of the University Quarter. The respondent University are equally not justified for the culpable delay in paying the gratuity on the alleged ground of non payment of rent. In the event of his demise this gratuity shall be payable to the nominee or nominees in the manner prescribed. Payment of gratuity cannot be linked up with unauthorised occupation of the University Quarter. The respondent University are equally not justified for the culpable delay in paying the gratuity on the alleged ground of non payment of rent. I am also not impressed by the argument put forward by the learned counsel that since the statute of the Universities has not fixed any time limit and there cannot be any question of delay for payment of the gratuity. The respondent University under its own law has declared in no uncertain terms that the gratuity is required to be paid on leaving the service of the University. In the instant case the petitioner superannuated on 19.1.1990 and the payment was only made on 5.6.1993. The statutory provisions did not mean that gratuity can be paid at any point of time after leaving the service of the University. A decision of the Supreme Court in R. Kapur vs. Director of Inspection (Painting and Publication) Income Tax & another reported in (1994) 6 SCC 589 is apposite. 8. Mr. R. Kapur retired as Director General of Income Tax on 28.2.1986 and he was informed that the payment of gratuity could not be paid till the receipt of 'No Demand Certificate' from the Directorate of Estates for the unauthorised occupation. A proceeding under Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation) Act, 1971. The said officer damages against Sri Kapur. The authority did not issue No Demand Certificate and the gratuity was withheld therefore under this circumstances. Mr. Kapur approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and Tribunal on consideration of the appeal held that the death cum-retirement gratuity could not be withheld merely because the employee had not vacated the allotted premises during the course of his employment. The appellant continued to retain the allotted residence even after retirement interest at the rate of 10% could be paid to Mr. Kapur. The appellant moved the Supreme Court claiming his entitlement of 18% interest at least in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Kerala vs. P. Padmanabhan Nair reported in (1985) 1 SCC 429 . The Apex Court in the above matter observed as under: "... Kapur. The appellant moved the Supreme Court claiming his entitlement of 18% interest at least in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Kerala vs. P. Padmanabhan Nair reported in (1985) 1 SCC 429 . The Apex Court in the above matter observed as under: "... Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment.... ... The Tribunal having come to the conclusion that DCRG cannot be withheld merely because the claim for damage for unauthorised occupation is pending, should in our considered opinion have granted interest at the rate of 18% since right to gratuity is not dependent upon the appellant vacating the official accommodation. Having regard to these circumstances we feel that it is a fit case in which the award of 18% is warranted it is so ordered. The DCRG due to the appellant will carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1.6.86 till date of payment. Of course this shall be without prejudice to the right of the respondent to recover damage under Fundamental Rule, 48A...." A decision referred by Mr. RL Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent for withholding the gratuity reported in AIR 1994 SC 1484 does not come into assistance. In the aforesaid case (the appellant Jarnail Singh) by an order dated 26.5.85 the President of India exercising the power conferred under Rule 9 of Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 directed full monthly pension and entire amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity otherwise admissible to the appellant to be withheld on permanent basis. This direction was given on account of serious irregularity found to have been committed by the appellant in an enquiry hold for the purpose and in consultation with the UPSC. Rule 9 conferred a right on the President to withdraw pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension of the whole c or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. Interpreting the Central Civil Service Pension Rules, 1972 the Supreme Court held that the pension includes gratuity. Rule 9 conferred a right on the President to withdraw pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension of the whole c or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. Interpreting the Central Civil Service Pension Rules, 1972 the Supreme Court held that the pension includes gratuity. The said decision therefore does not support the stand of the University. The order of deduction of Rs.3,175/- from the gratuity of the petitioner is also not sustainable. The impugned order of deduction is also violative of the principle of natural justice. The action of the University withholding the lawful dues for the petitioner cannot be justified under any circumstances. The next question comes as to whether the University can be saddled with interest and if the answer is affirmative what should be the rate of interest. Inertia and inaction no doubt warrants for an order awarding interest upon the authority. However, considering the fiscal situation of the University is on today, despite the remiss, I refrain from awarding interest and part with :he case with a note of deep distress. The respondent/University is directed to release the amount of Rs.3,175/- within one months from today failing to release he same within the period specified the respondents shall pay 15% interest till realisation of the same. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The respondents shall pay Rs.200/- as costs.