JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. Service is complete. None for the respondent. Petitioner has retired from the respondent-society on 31.1.2013. He has been paid a sum of Rs. 3,32,454/- towards gratuity. The balance amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs.1,27,766/- has not been paid to the petitioner. Respondent-society has also not paid leave encashment to the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,25,966/-. 2. Petitioner has right to get the retiral benefits immediately on his superannuation. The respondent-society could not grant the gratuity in piecemeal initially by paying a sum of Rs.2,04,454/- and thereafter Rs. 1,28,000/-. Petitioner was also entitled to get the leave encashment on the date of retirement. Respondent-society cannot be oblivious to the difficulties faced by the person, who has retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation. Petitioner is entitled to balance amount of gratuity and leave encashment to plan his retired life. 3. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.D. Tewari (D) through LRs vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, 2013 (3) S.L.J. 118 have held that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty and it is valuable rights and property in the hands of employee and the employee is entitled to interest for the wrongful detention of pension/gratuity. Their Lordships have held as under: “3. The appellant was appointed to the post of Line Superintendent on 30.08.1968 with the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. In the year 1990, he was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer-I. During his service, the appellant remained in charge of number of transformers after getting issued them from the stores and deposited a number of damaged transformers in the stores. While depositing the damaged transformers in the stores, some shortage in transformers oil and breakages of the parts of damaged transformers were erroneously debited to the account of the appellant and later on it was held that for the shortages and breakages there is no negligence on the part of the appellant. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.10.2006. The retiral benefits of the appellant were withheld by the respondents on the alleged ground that some amount was due to the employer. The disciplinary proceedings were not pending against the appellant on the date of his retirement. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.10.2006. The retiral benefits of the appellant were withheld by the respondents on the alleged ground that some amount was due to the employer. The disciplinary proceedings were not pending against the appellant on the date of his retirement. Therefore, the appellant approached the High Court seeking for issuance of a direction to the respondents regarding payment of pension and release of the gratuity amount which are retiral benefits with an interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payments. The learned single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition vide order dated 25.08.2010, after setting aside the action of the respondents in withholding the amount of gratuity and directing the respondents to release the withheld amount of gratuity within three months without awarding interest as claimed by the appellant. The High Court has adverted to the judgments of this Court particularly, in the case of State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair[1], wherein this Court reiterated its earlier view holding that the pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement, but, have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be dealt with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment to the employees. The said legal principle laid down by this Court still holds good in so far as awarding the interest on the delayed payments to the appellant is concerned. This aspect of the matter was adverted to in the judgment of the learned single Judge without assigning any reason for not awarding the interest as claimed by the appellant. That is why that portion of the judgment of the learned single Judge was aggrieved of by the appellant and he had filed L.P.A. before Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court has passed a cryptic order which is impugned in this appeal. That is why that portion of the judgment of the learned single Judge was aggrieved of by the appellant and he had filed L.P.A. before Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court has passed a cryptic order which is impugned in this appeal. It has adverted to the fact that there is no order passed by the learned single Judge with regard to the payment of interest and the appellant has not raised any plea which was rejected by him, therefore, the Division Bench did not find fault with the judgment of the learned single Judge in the appeal and the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. The correctness of the order is under challenge in this appeal before this Court urging various legal grounds.” 4. The action of the respondent-society not to release the gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner has resulted in great miscarriage of justice. 5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Respondent-society is directed to pay the balance gratuity amount of Rs.1,27,766/- and Rs. 1,25,966/- towards leave encashment to the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum within a period of eight weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.