JUDGEMENT Jyoti Saran, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Nath Dubey learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey learned Counsel representing respondent Nos. 3 to 6. 2. The petitioner was in the services of the Geological Survey of India and was subsequently transferred to the respondent Corporation and whereafter he was permanently absorbed in the Corporation. Under the scheme of voluntary retirement, the petitioner sought the same and which was accepted but as the retiral benefits flowing there from were not calculated in accordance with law, it prompted the petitioner to move this Court by filing a writ petition giving rise to C.W.J.C. No. 1596 of 1995 which was disposed of vide order dated 4.11.1996 directing the authorities of the Corporation to decide the case of the petitioner relating to payment of post retiral benefits in accordance with the guidelines contained in the memorandum dated 8.4.1976 taking into account the service rendered by him under the Government of India. The entire payment as admissible to the petitioner was directed to be paid within two months. Upon noncompliance of the said order the petitioner filed a contempt application giving rise to MJC No. 3342 of 1997 and which was also disposed of with a direction to the authorities to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner by speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of the said order. 3. It is in the light of the said direction of this Court passed in MJC No. 3342 of 1997 dated 22.12.1999 that the order as contained in Annexure-1 dated 31.3.2000 came to be passed disposing of the case of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved on two counts, namely, that the payment of service gratuity has not been properly calculated by the authority and has been calculated on the basis of the pay drawn by him at the time of his entry in service of the Corporation and not on the basis of the last pay drawn in accordance with the provision of the Payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the finding of the Deputy General Manager that in absence of directions given by the High Court as regards the payment of interest, the petitioner was not entitled for the same. 5. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the finding of the Deputy General Manager that in absence of directions given by the High Court as regards the payment of interest, the petitioner was not entitled for the same. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, not only the respondent authorities of the Corporation were under a legal obligation of calculating the gratuity amount of the petitioner on the basis of the last pay drawn but he is also entitled to the statutory interest as flowing from the provision of the said Act and respondents Corporation can not resile from said position. 6. Having regard to the submissions set forth above, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No. 5 the Deputy General Manager of the Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioner for recalculation of his gratuity amount in the light of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as also as regards his claim of interest in terms of the provisions stipulated thereunder and pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of with the direction aforesaid.