Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the action/non-action on the part of the respondent establishment has come to this Court inter alia submitting that calculation of the gratuity, is contrary to Clause 5(d) and as the payment was made late he would be entitled to 18% interest on the said amount for the period for which the amount was not paid to him. It is also submitted that the petitioner was entitled to house rent allowance, excepting for a period of eight months, the allowance has been paid and the respondents are refusing to pay the balance amount. It is lastly contended that in accordance with the policy of the respondent establishment the petitioner would be entitled to transportation charges from the place where he was leaving to the place where he proposes to settle. According to him the respondents under the policy cannot refuse the petitioners entitlement. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the petitioner in fact is seeking gratuity for the period of full length of the service to which the petitioner could work and not for the period for which the petitioner in fact has worked. About the house rent it is said that as the houses were available the petitioner and such employees who despite availability of the houses were not occupying the same would not be entitled to house rent allowance. It is also submitted that regarding the delayed payments the respondents are ready and willing to pay 5% interest on the total emoluments to which the petitioner is entitled. Regarding transportation charges it is submitted that the petitioner would be entitled to the said amount if he fills the form and in tact produces the receipt issued by the transporter and he cannot be allowed simply to submit a quotation and claim the same. 4. Clause 5(1)(d) of the scheme says "gratuity as admissible under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or under the Companys own gratuity scheme or any other retiring benefits prevalent under the Companys rules as applied to the retiring employees". 5. From a bare perusal of Clause 5(1)(d) it would clearly appear that it provides different alternatives. It nowhere says that the total years for which the petitioner could work would be taken into calculation while calculating the payable gratuity. 5. From a bare perusal of Clause 5(1)(d) it would clearly appear that it provides different alternatives. It nowhere says that the total years for which the petitioner could work would be taken into calculation while calculating the payable gratuity. It simply says that policy as applicable to the retiring employees would be applicable. If some employee had worked for 20 years and is seeking the retirement then he would be entitled to gratuity for 20 years length of service but would not be entitled to the gratuity for that length of service to which he could in fact have worked. 6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to 18% interest on the delayed payments but looking to the financial crisis faced by the respondent Company and that, to get rid of its employees It is ready and willing to make different payments to avoid future burden, I think that 5% payment of interest on the delayed payment would be proper. So far as the transportation charges are concerned the petitioner certainly would be entitled to the transportation charges provided in accordance with the policy of the Company/Establishment he fills the forms and submits the receipt relating to the actual expenses. The petitioner still is free to submit such application alongwith the certified documents. If such application alongwith the documents are filed then the establishment would consider the case of the petitioner and would pass necessary orders. 7. So far as the payment of house rent for eight months is concerned though the submission of the respondent was that the houses were available and the petitioner did not occupy, therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to the house rent allowance but undisputedly barring that period of eight months the petitioner has been paid the house rent allowance for the subsequent period even though he did not occupy the Companys house. It is not the case of the Company that the house rent allowance is to be paid to an employee in case or in the exigencies that the Company does not have the vacant houses and the employee is required to stay at some other place. It is not the case of the Company that the house rent allowance is to be paid to an employee in case or in the exigencies that the Company does not have the vacant houses and the employee is required to stay at some other place. If the Company had allowed the luxury in favour of the employee that either they may occupy the Companys house/quarters or may take house rent allowance then the employee would be entitled to exercise their option and the respondent Company would not be entitled to say that because of the availability of the quarters such employee would not be entitled to any house rent compensation/ allowance. The petition to the extent indicated above is allowed. If the petitioner furnishes application alongwith the receipt of the transportation documents then the respondent Establishment shall consider the same and issue necessary orders for payment of the same. So far as the house rent allowance is concerned the petitioner would be entitled to house rent allowance for the period for which the same has not been paid. The petitioner would be entitled to the interest on the delayed payment at the rate of 5% beyond the period of the scheme. 8. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain illegal deductions were also made from the salary of the petitioner when he was working with the respondents. In the opinion of this Court the question of those deductions can-not be raised in these proceedings. The petitioner is free to approach the proper forum for redressal of his grievances. 9. The petition to the extent indicated above is allowed.