Order Heard. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.5.2001 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also order dated 18.2.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority under the aforesaid Act. 3. Respondent No.1 was in service of the petitioner's company. During the service, some departmental proceedings were initiated against him. These proceedings continued to remain pending even at the time of his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. Respondent No. 1 retired from service on 28th February, 1998. After his retirement, he approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with an application for payment of gratuity which was wrongly denied to him as a post retiral benefits. This application was allowed by the Controlling Authority directing the employer petitioner to pay gratuity alongwith statutory interest to the Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 1st May, 2001. This order came to be assailed by the petitioner before the appellate authority. The appeal also came to be rejected vide other impugned order dated 18th February, 2002. 4. During the pendency of this petition, disciplinary authority of the petitioner company passed an order' dated 19th September, 2003 imposing penalty of removal from service on conclusion of disciplinary proceeding earlier initiated against respondent no. 1. This order has been placed on record through supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 1. 5. The plea of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that application of the respondent no. 1 before the Controlling Authority was premature having been filed during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, payment of retiral benefits is dependant on the outcome of disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent no. 1 to claim the retiral benefits at that stage. It is further submitted that controlling authority should not have taken cognizance till the disciplinary proceeding are concluded. 6. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the Division Bench decision of this court in the case of M/s B.C.C.L. vs. The Regional labour Commissioners and Ors. disposed of on 26th September, 2003. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the said order has been stayed by the Supreme Court. 6. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the Division Bench decision of this court in the case of M/s B.C.C.L. vs. The Regional labour Commissioners and Ors. disposed of on 26th September, 2003. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the said order has been stayed by the Supreme Court. Notwithstanding the operation or otherwise of the Judgment of the Division Bench, the fact remains that during the pendency of this petition, disciplinary proceedings stand concluded and the penalty of removal imposed on respondent no. 1. In my opinion, removal from service does not deprive the respondent no. 1 from the retiral benefits. There is also no order of recovery from the respondent no. 1. 7. In that view of the matter, this petition has been rendered infructuous and in absence of there being any order by the competent authority for effecting recovery from the petitioner, the respondent no. 1 is entitled to receive gratuity along with interest payable under law. If the amount already deposited with the appellate authority stands received by the respondent no. 1, the petitioner may determine the balance, if any, amount payable to the respondent no. 1. If any balance amount remains unpaid, same shall also be paid within four months from today, failing which the respondent no. 1 shall also be entitled to interest on unpaid amount at the rate of 5% till the amount is paid. 8. With the aforesaid observation this application is disposed of.