JUDGMENT 1. The only question raised, in the instant intra-court appeal, for our consideration is, whether the appellant petitioner is entitled to interest in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, on the amount of gratuity after 30 days of his retirement as required under Section 7 (3A) of the Act of 1972? 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the skeltal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controvery raised are that the petitioner was appointed as Loan Supervisor vide order dated 15th November, 1976, in the pay scale of Rs. 120-240 and retired on 30th June, 2007, having attained the age of superannuation. The issue of status as an incumbent on the post of Loan Supervisor, was set at rest by the opinion of this Court in SBCWP No.4177/1993 (Smt. Mohari Devi v. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur & Anr) decided on 7th April, 1996 treating them to be employees of the Bank. 3. Indisputably, the status of the petitioner was that of an employee of the respondent-Bank, benefit of gratuity has also been accorded w.e.f 1st July, 1982, the fact of appointment of the appellant-petitioner w.e.f 15th November, 1985, until his retirement on 30th June, 2007 acquiring the age of superannuation, is also not in dispute. The learned Single Judge found the appellant-petitioner entitled for payment of gratuity for the period of service rendered by him since his appointment and made a direction for payment of gratuity to the appellant-petitioner. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record. 5. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge has not been challenged by the respondent-Bank wherein the petitioner-appellant has been held entitled for payment of gratuity as per mandate of the Act of 1972. 6. A glance of text of Section 7(3A) proviso and 8 of the Act of 1972, would reveal that interest on the delayed payment of gratuity is mandatory and not discretionary, in case the delay is not attributable to the employee. 7. Be that as it may, the controversy raised is no more res-integra in view of the opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of H.Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd.; (2003) 3 SCC 40 ; wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: "9. 7. Be that as it may, the controversy raised is no more res-integra in view of the opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of H.Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd.; (2003) 3 SCC 40 ; wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: "9. It is clear from what is extracted above from the order of learned Single Judge that interest on delayed payment of gratuity was denied only on the ground that there was doubt whether the appellant was entitled to gratuity, cash equivalent to leave etc., in view of divergent opinion of the courts during the pendency of enquiry. The learned Single Judge having held that the appellant was entitled for payment of gratuity was not right in denying the interest on the delayed payment of gratuity having due regard to Section 7(3A) of the Act. It was not the case of the respondent that the delay in the payment of gratuity was due to the fault of the employee and that it had obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on that ground. As noticed above, there is a clear mandate in the provisions of Section 7 to the employer for payment of gratuity within time and to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. There is also provision to recover the amount of gratuity with compound interest in case amount of gratuity payable was not paid by the employer in terms of Section 8 of the Act. Since the employer did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of the proviso to Section 7(3A), no discretion was left to deny the interest to the appellant on belated payment of gratuity. Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court, having found that the appellant was entitled for interest, declined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge as regards the claim of interest on delayed payment of gratuity only on the ground that the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge could not be said to be arbitrary. In the first place in the light of what is stated above, the learned Single Judge could not refuse the grant of interest exercising discretion as against the mandatory provisions contained in Section 7 of the Act. In the first place in the light of what is stated above, the learned Single Judge could not refuse the grant of interest exercising discretion as against the mandatory provisions contained in Section 7 of the Act. The Division Bench, in our opinion, committed an error in assuming that the learned Single Judge could exercise the discretion in the matter of awarding interest and that such a discretion exercised was not arbitrary. 10. In the light of the facts stated and for the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Consequently, it is set aside. The respondent is directed to pay interest @ 10% on the amount of gratuity to which the appellant is entitled from the date it became payable till the date of payment of the gratuity amount. The appeal is allowed accordingly with cost quantified at Rs. 10,000/-." 8. In the result, the intra-court appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. 9. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21st March, 2012, is modified to the extent that the respondents shall make payment of gratuity with interest for delayed payment of gratuity @ 9% per annum. 10. We, however, make it clear that the direction would be applicable only to the extent of payment due after adjusting the payments already made in this reference. 11. No costs.Appeal allowed. *******