Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 729 (ALL)

DEO NANDAN SINGH v. STATE OF U P

2009-03-04

SATISH CHANDRA, U.K.DHAON

body2009
DR. SATISH CHANDRA, J. 1. Heard Sri T. N. Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 5, 7 and 8. None has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 6. 2. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31. 10. 1997 while he was working as Deputy Collector/up Zila Adhikari, Bahraich. As the pensionary benefits were not paid to the petitioner within time, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition in July, 1999. On 29. 07. 1999 while passing the interim order a direction was issued by this Court to the opposite parties either to clear all the dues of the petitioner or show cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 30. 09. 1999, a sum of Rs. 2,07,485/- towards gratuity was paid to the petitioner but no interest on the gratuity amount was paid to him for the delay in payment, although the petitioner under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is entitled for simple interest for the delayed payment of the gratuity amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Honble the Supreme Court in H. Gangahanume Gowda v. Kartnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. reported in (2003) 3 S. C. C. 40 and the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 01. 10. 2008 in Writ Petition No. 1133 (SB) of 2001, Indrajeet Singh v. State of U. P. and others. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any interest on the delayed payment of the gratuity amount. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner who was working on the post of Deputy Collector, Bahraich attained the age of superannuation on 31. 10. 1997. As the post-retiral benefits were not paid to the petitioner well within time, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition in which the following relief has been prayed. " 1. 5. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner who was working on the post of Deputy Collector, Bahraich attained the age of superannuation on 31. 10. 1997. As the post-retiral benefits were not paid to the petitioner well within time, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition in which the following relief has been prayed. " 1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties for the payment of the pension and pensionary benefits including gratuity, pension rashikaran, final payment of General Provident Fund, Group Insurance amount, Leave encashment and all other arrears with interest to the petitioner in compliance of the letter No. 1700/2/3-38/3624197 dated 23. 4. 1999 as contained jn Annexure-1 to this Writ Petition. " 6. On 29. 07. 1999, an interim order was passed by this Court. Thereafter on 30. 09. 1999, a sum of Rs. 2,07,485/- towards gratuity was paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the law declared by Honble the Supreme Court in the case of H. Gangahanume Gowdav. Kartnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. (Supra) has prayed for interest on the delayed payment of gratuity amount. 7. Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which is relevant reads as under : "determination of the amount of gratuity - (1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorized, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed, for payment of such gratuity. (2) As soon as the gratuity becomes payable, the employer shall,whether an application referred to in sub-section (1) has been made or not, determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined. (2) As soon as the gratuity becomes payable, the employer shall,whether an application referred to in sub-section (1) has been made or not, determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined. (3-A) If the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify: Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground. " 8. Honble the Supreme Court has held that the employees on retirement have valuable rights to get gratuity and any culpable delay in payment of gratuity must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest. 9. In the instant case, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31. 10. 1997. The amount of gratuity was paid to the petitioner on 30. 09. 1999. We are of the view that the petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum on the delayed amount of gratuity from the date when he was entitled for the same and till the date of actual payment of gratuity. The opposite parties shall pay the interest on the delayed amount of gratuity within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced. 10. With the above observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of. .