Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By means of the present appeal, the appellant/writ respondent No.1 has challenged the judgment, dated 24th June, 2013, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in CWP No.3507 of 2012, titled Welfare Society of Retired Teachers/Scientists of Dr. Y.S. Parmar UHF, Solan vs. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of H&F, Solan, H.P. and others, whereby the Writ Court, after examining the pleadings and the Rules applicable, held that the decision of the writ respondents was not in accordance with law and accordingly, the respondent-University was directed to pay the arrears of revised pension to the members of the petitioner-Society w.e.f. 1.1.2006 to 31.3.2011, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The respondent-University was further directed to pay Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity on revised rate w.e.f. 1.1.2006, with maximum limit of Rs.10.00 lacs, at par with the State Government employees, with interest as prescribed under rule 68 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 read with instruction No.II appended thereto. 2. The writ respondent No.1/appellant satisfied the impugned judgment by making the revised payment, but contested the same, by means of the present appeal, so far as it relates to interest on the gratuity amount. 3. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the appellant-University made all efforts to pay the gratuity to the members of the petitioner-Society at revised rates, which fact, as submitted, is evident from the correspondence which took place between the appellant-University and the State Government in terms of Annexures P-7, and P-9 on the writ file, but the State Government, which is the final Authority, has not accorded its concurrence (Annexure P-8). Thus, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the delay is not attributable to the appellant-University. 4. In support of her above argument, the learned counsel for the appellant-University has relied upon Rule 68 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. It is apt to reproduce Rule 68 of the Rules ibid hereunder: “68. Thus, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the delay is not attributable to the appellant-University. 4. In support of her above argument, the learned counsel for the appellant-University has relied upon Rule 68 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. It is apt to reproduce Rule 68 of the Rules ibid hereunder: “68. Interest on delayed payment of gratuity – (1) If the payment of gratuity has been authorized later than the date when its payment becomes due, and it is clearly established that the delay in payment was attributable to administrative lapses, interest shall be paid at such rate as may be prescribed and in accordance with the instructions issued from time to time : Provided that the delay in payment was not caused on account of failure on the part of the Government servant to comply with the procedure laid down by the Government for processing his pension papers. (2) Every case of delayed payment of gratuity shall be considered by the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry or the Department in respect of its employees and the employees of its attached and subordinate offices and where the Secretary of the Ministry or the Department is satisfied that the delay in the payment of gratuity was caused on account of administrative lapse, the Secretary of the Ministry or the Department shall sanction payment of interest. (3) The Administrative Ministry or the Department shall issue Presidential sanction for the payment of interest after the Secretary has sanctioned the payment of interest under sub-rule (2). (4) In all cases where the payment of interest has been sanctioned by the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry or the Department, such Ministry or the Department shall fix the responsibility and take disciplinary action against the Government servant or servants who are found responsible for the delay in the payment of gratuity. (5) Deleted.” 5. We have gone through Annexures P-7, P-8 and P-9, a perusal of which do disclose that the appellant/writ respondent No.1 has not delayed the payment of gratuity at the enhanced rate, but, in fact, was willing to release the same at revised rates and had made correspondences (supra) with the State Government. (5) Deleted.” 5. We have gone through Annexures P-7, P-8 and P-9, a perusal of which do disclose that the appellant/writ respondent No.1 has not delayed the payment of gratuity at the enhanced rate, but, in fact, was willing to release the same at revised rates and had made correspondences (supra) with the State Government. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of Annexure P-9, the letter dated 14th October, 2011, written by the Vice Chancellor of the appellant-University to the Principal Secretary (Finance), Government of Himachal Pradesh, hereunder: “In view of the above, it is requested that the matter with regard to freezing the limit of gratuity in respect of university’s employees/retirees at Rs.3.50 lac may kindly be reconsidered and the retirement gratuity to its employees with maximum limit of Rs.10.00 lac at par with other Government employees, may be allowed.” 6. In view of the above stated position, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the delay in releasing the gratuity at enhanced rate was not attributable to the appellant- University. 7. Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), mandates law that interest can be granted, which reads as under: “34. Interest (1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent, per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit: Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent, per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. Explanation I.—In this sub-section, "nationalised bank" means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 (5 of 1970). Explanation II.—For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability. (2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefore shall not lie.” 8. Therefore, in terms of Section 34 CPC, interest on the decretal amount can be granted from the date of presentation of the suit or from the date of passing of the decree. 9. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment is modified only to the extent that the interest on the enhanced gratuity amount, as granted by the learned Single Judge, would be payable from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 3rd May, 2012. 10. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly, alongwith all the pending CMPs.