Judgment : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This mandamus appeal is directed against an order passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 19th September, 2014 in W.P. 24210(W) of 2014 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed by holding it as not maintainable. The writ petitioners/appellants were directed to pay the entire unpaid gratuity inclusive of cost of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) to the private respondent (worker) within a week from the date of the said order. Challenging the said order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court, the instant mandamus appeal was filed by the writ petitioners/appellants. We have heard the Learned advocates appearing for the parties. Since we are requested by the learned advocates of the parties for taking up this appeal on merit, we have considered the merit of this appeal by treating it as on the day’s list. Considering the order impugned, we do not find any apparent illegality in the order as we find that the resignation, which was submitted by the respondent no.1 herein on 2nd April, 2012, was accepted by the writ petitioners/appellants on 12th April, 2012 and the respondent no.1 herein was allowed to resign with effect from 30th April, 2012. Despite the resignation tendered by the respondent no.1 was accepted by the writ petitioners/appellants, the gratuity amount which was payable to the respondent no.1 herein was not paid to him by the writ petitioners/appellants. A sum of Rs.5,02,425/- was the admitted dues of the writ petitioners/appellants towards the gratuity of the respondent no.1 herein. The writ petitioners/appellants paid a sum of Rs.2,93,224/- on account of gratuity to the respondent no.1 herein. The remaining dues amounting to Rs.2,59,273/- have not yet been paid to the respondent no.1. We are informed by Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.1 herein that the remaining dues amounting to Rs.2,59,273/- was inclusive of the interest payable to his client up to September, 2013. He thus submits that since such payment has not yet been made to his client, his client is entitled to get further interest up to the date of payment. We find substance in such contention of Mr. Banerjee. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal by directing the appellants to pay the remaining dues of Mr. He thus submits that since such payment has not yet been made to his client, his client is entitled to get further interest up to the date of payment. We find substance in such contention of Mr. Banerjee. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal by directing the appellants to pay the remaining dues of Mr. Banerjee’s client amounting to Rs.2,59,273/- together with further interest at the statutory rate up to the date of payment thereof. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners/appellants prays for some time for liquidating his client’s dues. Accordingly, we permit the writ petitioners/appellants to pay the said sum of Rs.2,59,273/-together with further interest at the statutory rate up to the date of actual payment thereof to the respondent no.1 herein, by the end of December 2014. It is further made clear that in the event such payment is made by the appellants within the time as fixed above, the appellants need not pay the cost amount awarded by the Learned Trial Judge in the impugned order. The appeal is thus disposed of with the above modification of the impugned order. Re: CAN 11137 of 2014 (Stay) In view of disposal of the appeal in the manner as aforesaid, no further order need be passed on the stay application. The stay application being CAN 11137 of 2014 is thus deemed to be disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the applicant as early as possible.