Judgment : V. KANAGARAJ, J. The petition has been filed praying to issue a writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pay interest at 12% p.a. on the gratuity sum of Rs. 4,650/- from October 1, 1976 till the date of payment. 2. The first petitioner would narrate his case in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition to the effect that he got appointed as Sanitary Worker in the office of the first respondent on June 1, 1945 and after 31 years of service, he retired on September 30, 1976, that after retirement, he sought gratuity and much to his dismay, he was informed by the first respondent that no gratuity was payable to him; that he made an application dated September 20, 1990 to the Controlling Authority under Section7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act seeking gratuity along with interest for the belated payment, but the Controlling Authority dismissed the said application by his order dated February 21, 1991 on ground that it was not applicable to Local Bodies by G.O.Ms. No. 239 dated January 8, 1982; that he preferred an appeal to the second respondent against the order of the Controlling Authority on February 28, 1991 citing the decisions of the Apex Court and that of various other High Courts declaring that the Local Bodies were liable to pay gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act and that no separate Government Order was required for that purpose and the second respondent allowed the appeal and directed the first respondent to pay the gratuity amounting to Rs. 4,650/-. 4,650/-. But however, he failed to order payment of interest for the belated payment of gratuity; that since the delay was caused solely on account of the wrong stand adopted by the first respondent, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same; that the Supreme Court in its decision reported in State of Kerala v. Padmanaban (1985-I-LLJ-530) (SC) held that interest at 12% p.a. has to be paid by the employer for belated settlement of gratuity; that various High Courts have also taken the same view, that it is unreasonable on the part of the second respondent to have not awarded the interest, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the relevant provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and with the above contentions, the petitioner would pray for the relief sought for as stated supra.3. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner besides confirming what has been pleaded in the writ petition would cite a recent judgment of the Apex Court delivered in Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. and another reported in (1999-I-LLJ-1335) (SC). In the above judgment, dealing with the retiral benefits, the Supreme Court has held : "Pension is not a bounty but right of a government servant. Government is obliged to follow rules. Delay in settling retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too, there is prescribed procedure. This indeed is unfortunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the Court can certainly keep in mind time-schedule prescribed in the rules/instructions, apart from other relevant factors applicable to a case." 4. Regarding the facts of the service of the first petitioner and his retirement, there is nothing to be denied on the part of the respondents nor could they say anything against the judgments cited by the petitioners reported in (1985-I-LLJ-530) (SC) and (1999-I-LLJ-1335) (SC), cited supra. 5. It is a clear case wherein the second respondent, while passing his order directing the first respondent to pay the gratuity of Rs. 4,650/-to the first petitioner, had failed to order payment of interest for the belated payment of gratuity. 5. It is a clear case wherein the second respondent, while passing his order directing the first respondent to pay the gratuity of Rs. 4,650/-to the first petitioner, had failed to order payment of interest for the belated payment of gratuity. Needless to say that there has been an inordinate delay in payment of the gratuity that had been caused on account of the first respondents refusal to grant the gratuity in favour of the first petitioner under miserable misconception of law, for which it is not the first petitioner who should have been taxed with non-payment of the interest inspite of the fact of the existence of law as declared by the Supreme Court at the time of passing of the orders by both the respondents.6. When the law is clear, the first petitioner was entitled to the payment of interest on the gratuity amount of Rs. 4,650/-from the day that it became payable to the date of payment. Hence, in the above circumstances. I am left with no option but to allow the writ petition directing the first respondent to pay interest at 12% p.a. on the gratuity amount of Rs. 4,650/- from the day that it became payable ill the date of payment, which should be done in two months from the date of receipt of this order, in favour of the second petitioner, who got impleaded as the Legal Representative of the first petitioner on his death. In result, the above Writ Petition succeeds and the same is allowed with the above directions. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.