JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Kirit R. Patel, learned advocate for Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Acharya, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that: "11B. Allow the present Special Civil Application by way of issuing appropriate writ of mandamus or writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.3.10 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 at Ahmedabad i.e. respnt. No. 3 in Gratuity Misc. Application No. 1/10 annexed as ANNEXURE-F by way of holding that the same is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and evidence on record as well as the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in the interest of justice." 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 31.3.2010 whereby the Controlling Authority reached to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to receive interest for the period from 3.12.2008 to 14.10.2009 and therefore directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 27,709/- towards interest for the said period, i.e. for the period during which the payment of gratuity as well as interest (for delayed payment of gratuity) was not paid and that too despite earlier orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority. 4. So far as the relevant facts are concerned, the petitioner has averred and stated that: "2. The petitioner submits that the respnt. No. 1 borne on 11.1.49 was appointed on 26.3.83 as daily wage technical Supervisor and was made permanent on 26.6.83 and retired on 31.1.07 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner submits that the respnt. No. 1 herein was released benefit of Rs. 2,21,060/- towards Leave Encashment as well as Rs. 34150/- with interest towards Group Insurance. The petitioner submits that as per the respnt. No. 1 was a member of Govt. Provident Scheme no pension was payable to him. It is humbly stated that the respnt. No. 1 had rendered service of 27 years 7 months and 5 days and the gratuity was payable for that period. 3. The petitioner submits that it is noticed that while the respnt. No. 1 was in service he was involved in serious financial irregularity when he was posted as Asstt. Engineer, Central Workshop Dept. and supervising issuance of Petrol and Diesel. 3. The petitioner submits that it is noticed that while the respnt. No. 1 was in service he was involved in serious financial irregularity when he was posted as Asstt. Engineer, Central Workshop Dept. and supervising issuance of Petrol and Diesel. It is submitted that stock of 40,000 liters of Diesel costing Rs. 15/16 Lacs was in deficit and there was a collusion with other staff members and, therefore, a notice dated 24.10.2008 was issued. It is pertinent to note that prior thereto a complaint was received by the Hon'ble Mayor of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and in response to that the entire matter was looked into by the vigilance Dept. of the Corporation. It is submitted that in view of this finding of the Vigilance Dept. the above mentioned Notice dated 24.10.08 was issued. It is submitted that the respnt. No. 1 herein who was not paid the benefit of gratuity in light of the pending proceeding before the Vigilance Dept. had approached the respnt. No. 3 authority by way of filing Gratuity Case No. 24/08 and inspite of these facts brought on the record of respnt. No. 3 in writing, an order dated 24.10.08 was passed by the respnt. No. 3 ordering to pay a gratuity of Rs. 3.5 lacs. 4. It is submitted that being aggrieved by the same the present petitioner preferred Gratuity Appeal No. 11/09 before the respnt. No. 2 while the respnt. No. 1 preferred appeal No. 13/09 praying for the payment of Rs. 3.5 lacs with interest @ 10% for a delayed period. The petitioner submits that ignoring the vital factual and legal aspects Gratuity Appeal No. 11/09 preferred by the petitioner is rejected on 24.3.09 by the respnt. No. 2 and, therefore, the same was challenged by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 5746/09 before this Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat but the same was rejected on 8.7.09. The petitioner humbly states that as the respnt. No. 2 herein allowed the Gratuity Appeal No. 13/09 through orders dated 24.3.09 ordering the petitioner to pay Rs. 3.5 lacs with interest @ 10% another Special Civil Application No. 6527/09 was filed by present petitioner against the said order before this Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. The petitioner submits that the said Special Civil Application No. 6527/09 is also rejected on 8.7.09. 5. 3.5 lacs with interest @ 10% another Special Civil Application No. 6527/09 was filed by present petitioner against the said order before this Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. The petitioner submits that the said Special Civil Application No. 6527/09 is also rejected on 8.7.09. 5. At this stage the petitioner craves leave to draw a kind attention of this Hon'ble Court to the facts that pursuant to the orders of the respnt. No. 3 dated 24.10.08 in Gratuity Case No. 24/08 ordering the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3.5 lacs towards gratuity and immediate action was taken and it was deposited with the respnt. No. 2 on 3.12.08. It is submitted that only thereafter Gratuity Appeal No. 11/09 was filed by the petitioner and heard by the respnt. No. 2 on merits. It is stated that this was in compliance with the statutory requirement as provided under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 6. It is humbly submitted that as per the order of the respnt. No. 2 in Appeal No. 13/09 preferred by the respnt. No. 1 herein an amount of Rs. 67083/- towards interest from 1.2.07 till the date of deposit of Rs. 3.50 lacs on 3.12.08 was paid directly to the respnt. No. 1 subsequent to rejection of Special Civil Application No. 5746/09 and Special Civil Application No. 6527/09 by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat through a common order dated 8.7.09. In view of this it is clear that the orders of the respnt. No. 2 and 3 were fully complied with as per the legal requirement. 7. The petitioner submits that however the respnt. No. 1 herein preferred Gratuity Misc. Application No. 1/10 before the respnt. No. 1 praying for interest with effect from 3.12.08 to 14.10.09 as if the petitioner herein was responsible for non payment of the deposited amount of Rs. 3.5 lacs which was as such lying with the respnt. No. 3 with effect from 3.12.08. The petitioner submits that flimsy grounds were raised by the respnt. No. 1 for the said relief. The petitioner submits that a detailed reply was filed taking all factual and legal contentions. The petitioner further submits that ignoring all the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as well as the factual aspects including legal proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, the respnt. No. 1 for the said relief. The petitioner submits that a detailed reply was filed taking all factual and legal contentions. The petitioner further submits that ignoring all the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as well as the factual aspects including legal proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, the respnt. No. 1 shockingly and surprisingly ordered on 31.3.10 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 27709/- towards interest for a period commencing from 3.12.08 to 14.10.09 as if the petitioner was responsible for non-payment of the amount though it was deposited with the respnt. No. 3 on 3.12.08." 5. The claimant filed reply affidavit and disputed the case of the petitioner corporation. The respondent - claimant has stated in his affidavit that: "(3) With the reference to the contentions and averments raised in para 1 of the Sp. Civil Application. It is true that Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is a statutory body under the provisions of BPMC Act and petitioner preferred the present Sp. Civil Application under the provisions of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, but it is not true and correct that the order passed by the respondent No. 3 on dated 31.03.2010 in Gratuity Misc. Application No. 1/2010 order into pay interest amounting to Rs. 27,709/- for a period w.e.f. 03.12.2008 to 14.10.2009 is erroneous and arbitrarily. (4) With reference to the contents and averments raised in para (2) of the petition are not true and correct unless it is specifically admitted by me, it is true that I borne on 11.01.1949 and was appointed on 26.06.1978 as a daily wage technical supervisor and was made permanent on 26.06.1983 and retired on 31.01.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation, it is true that the respondent No. 1 released the benefit of Rs. 2,21,060/- towards leave and encashment as well as Rs. 24,150/- with interest towards group insurance. It is also true that the respondent No. 1 was a member of Government Provident Fund Scheme. No pension was payable to me. It is true that respondent had rendered services of 27 years, 7 months and 5 days and the gratuity was payable for that period. (5) With reference to the contentions and averments raised in para (3) if the petition are not true and correct, unless it is specifically admitted by me. No pension was payable to me. It is true that respondent had rendered services of 27 years, 7 months and 5 days and the gratuity was payable for that period. (5) With reference to the contentions and averments raised in para (3) if the petition are not true and correct, unless it is specifically admitted by me. It is not true that while I was in service involved in serious financial irregularity, when posted as Asst. Engineer, Central Workshop Dept. and supervising issuance of petrol and diesel. It is also not true that stock of 40,000 ltrs. Of diesel costing Rs. 15.16 lacs was in deficit and there was a collusion with other staff members, such contentions are not true and correct. It is true that notice dated 24.10.2008 was issued to me and I had given specific reply of that notice on dated 11.12.2008 in which I had categorically mention each and every points raised by the petitioner corporation in notice dated 24.10.2008. It is not true that prior their to a complain was received by the Hon'ble Mayor of petitioner corporation and in response to that the entire matter was looked into by the Vigilance Dept. of the petitioner corporation. It is not true that findings of the Vigilance Dept., the above mention notice dated 24.10.2008 was issued to me. It is not true that the respondent No. 1 herein was not paid the benefit of gratuity in light of the pending proceedings before the Vigilance Dept. had approached the Respondent No. 3 Authority, by way of filing Gratuity Case No. 24/2008 and inspite of these facts brought on the record of respondent No. 3 in writing an order dated 24.10.2008 was passed by the respondent No. 3, ordering to pay a gratuity of Rs. 3.5 lacs. The respondent No. 3 had rightly passed an order after considering the arguments of the both the parties, so the averments raised by the petitioner are not true and correct and not admitted by me. (6) With reference to the averment and contentions raised in para 4 of the petition, it is true that the present petitioner preferred gratuity appeal No. 11/2009 before the respondent No. 2 while I preferred an Appeal No. 13/2009 praying for the payment of Rs. 3.5 lacs with interest p.a. 10% for a delay period. (6) With reference to the averment and contentions raised in para 4 of the petition, it is true that the present petitioner preferred gratuity appeal No. 11/2009 before the respondent No. 2 while I preferred an Appeal No. 13/2009 praying for the payment of Rs. 3.5 lacs with interest p.a. 10% for a delay period. It is not true that ignoring the vital factual and legal aspects gratuity appeal No. 11/09 preferred by the petitioner is rejected on dated 24.03.2009 by the respondent No. 2. It is true that the same was challenged by way of filing Sp. Civil Application No. 5746/09 before this Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, but the same was rejected on 08.07.2009. It is true that the Gratuity Appeal No. 13/09 filed by me allowed by the respondent No. 2 through order dated 24.03.2009, ordering the petitioner to pay Rs. 3.5 lacs with interest @ 10% another Sp. Civil Application No. 6527/2009 was filed by present petitioner against the said order before this Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. The said Sp. Civil Application No. 6527/2009 is also rejected on 08.07.2009. Such contentions are true and correct. (8) with reference to the contentions and averments raised in Para (6) of the petition, it is true that as per the order of the respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 13/09 preferred by me herein an amount of Rs. 67,083/- towards interest from 01.02.2007 till the date of deposit of Rs. 3.5 lacs was paid on 03.02.2008 directly to me subsequent to rejection of Sp. Civil Application No. 5746/2009 and Sp. Civil Application No. 6527/2009 by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat through a common order dated 08.07.2009. The facts is that after rejection of Sp. Civil Application No. 5746/2009 and 6527/2009 filed by the petitioner. I had wrote a letter to the respondent No. 2 and 3 to release the amount of Rs. 3.50 lacs deposited by the petitioner and after received the letter written by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 and 3 on dated 13.10.2009. The amount of Rs. 3.50 lacs was released by the respondent No. 2 and 3 on dated 15.10.2009. It is further stated that petitioner had not paid the amount of interest as ordered by the respondent No. 2. The amount of Rs. 3.50 lacs was released by the respondent No. 2 and 3 on dated 15.10.2009. It is further stated that petitioner had not paid the amount of interest as ordered by the respondent No. 2. I had approach the respondent No. 2 and 3 on dated 27.10.2009 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, filling by Form No. 'T' (to execute the order of the respondent No. 2 and 3). Respondent No. 2 had wrote a letter to the petitioner on dated 23.10.2009 regarding the interest on amount of gratuity at 10% simple interest. After receiving the said letter petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 67,083/- towards the interest from 01.02.2007 to 31.12.2008. So the contentions raised by the petitioner that the orders of the respondent No. 2 and 3 where fully complied with as per the legal requirement are not true and correct." 6. From above mentioned facts, it comes out that the claimant alleged that the petitioner corporation did not pay him gratuity. 6.1 The claimant also alleged that subsequently in view of the orders passed by the Controlling Authority, the amount payable towards gratuity was paid to the workman but due amount of gratuity was paid to the claimant after long delay and that, therefore, he was entitled for interest for the period of delay. The said claim also resulted into litigation and the Controlling Authority passed earlier order allowing the claim of the respondent and directed the corporation to pay interest for the period of delay. 6.2 Subsequently, part of total interest payable under the authority's direction from the date on which gratuity was payable till 14.10.2009, however that amount was not paid. 6.3 According to the claimant, he was entitled for interest. Therefore, he (i.e. the claimant) filed Misc. Application No. 1 of 2010 before the Controlling Authority. 6.4 The Controlling Authority took into account various dates on which the corporation periodically made payment of gratuity and interest to the claimant and after examining relevant details, the Controlling Authority reached to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled for interest for the period from 3.12.2008 to 14.10.2009. In the result, the Controlling Authority calculated the claim amount and quantified the claim at Rs. 27,709/- and passed the order dated 31.3.2010. 7. In the result, the Controlling Authority calculated the claim amount and quantified the claim at Rs. 27,709/- and passed the order dated 31.3.2010. 7. Before proceeding further, it is also relevant to mention that rival claims and allegations by the petitioner and the claimant were subject-matter of cross petitions, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 6527 of 2009 and Special Civil Application No. 5746 of 2009. 7.1 The said petitions came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 8.7.2009. In the said order, the Court observed and held that: "1. The petitioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, employer, has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Appellate Authority passed in Gratuity Appeal No. 11 of 2009 and Cross-Appeal No. 13 of 2009, whereunder the Appellate Authority has not only confirmed the payment of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- but also allowing simple interest the at the rate of 10% vide its order dated 24 March, 2009. 2. The workman was working at the relevant time as Assistant Engineer in Central Workshop Department of Corporation. After his superannuation on 31.1.2007, the respondent-workman had to move the Payment of Gratuity Authority by way of application being Case No. 24 of 2008 for receiving gratuity as the same was withheld for no permissible purpose and ground. The Controlling Authority came to the conclusion that the workman was entitled to receive payment of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/-but did not grant any interest. Hence, the said order of the Controlling Authority was assailed by the workman in appeal being Cross-Appeal No. 13 of 2009 so far as it did not grant interest and the department i.e. the petitioner preferred appeal being Appeal No. 11 of 2009 as gratuity was wrongfully awarded though there was show cause notice and proposed inquiry pending for forfeiting the gratuity amount for the alleged misconduct. The appellate authority, as stated hereinabove, came to be conclusion that the workman was entitled to receive even interest at the simple rate of 10% per annum. Thus, allowing the appeal of the workman and confirming the order of the Controlling Authority so far as the amount of gratuity is concerned and rejected the appeal of the Corporation. Thus, these two petitions have been filed challenging the same order and they are now being disposed of by this common order. 3. Thus, allowing the appeal of the workman and confirming the order of the Controlling Authority so far as the amount of gratuity is concerned and rejected the appeal of the Corporation. Thus, these two petitions have been filed challenging the same order and they are now being disposed of by this common order. 3. Shri H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the workman hereinabove i.e. respondent is not entitled to receive the gratuity, in view of the fact that there was serious allegation of misconduct and his involvement thereof in diesel and petrol theft. A complaint was received by Hon'ble Mayor of Ahmedabad and the same was referred to the Vigilance Department of the Corporation, which submitted its report and thereafter show cause notice dated 24.10.2008 came to be issued and the petitioner is seriously considering to initiate inquiry for forfeiting the said amount of gratuity and/or recovery of the damages sustained to the Corporation. Shri Munshaw submitted that the orders of Controlling Authority as well as that of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as the Corporation being a public authority, it was likely to take some time in initiating proceedings against the delinquent and as there was proof of other persons being involved in the theft, but that in itself does not mean that it would be belated against the Corporation's right to conduct inquiry for withholding the gratuity and/or forfeiting the same and recover the amount if any towards damages sustained by the Corporation. 4. Shri Hemal K. Acharya learned advocate for the respondent-workman submitted that it is a small after thought as the workman had retired peacefully and as he had opted for C.P.F. Scheme, he was not entitled to receive any pension. The gratuity amount is the right of the workman and there ought to have been proper inquiry before withholding the same. 5. This Court heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the impugned award. 6. The following few facts emerge which deserve to be borne in mind while examining the rival contentions of the parties. (1) The workman retired as Assistant Engineer only way back on 31.1.2007. Till his attaining the age of superannuation he was not issued any notice and/or memo nor there was any whisper with regard to his involvement in any alleged theft of diesel, petrol etc. (1) The workman retired as Assistant Engineer only way back on 31.1.2007. Till his attaining the age of superannuation he was not issued any notice and/or memo nor there was any whisper with regard to his involvement in any alleged theft of diesel, petrol etc. (2) The respondent workman, for the first time, received show cause notice dated 24.10.2008. Meaning thereby, the Corporation permitted the respondent to retire on 31.1.2007 and did not take any steps whatsoever. The receipt of complaint, its date and the delay aspect has absolutely not been explained by the Corporation so as to understand and condone the same in favour of the Corporation. (3) As it is stated at the Bar, the Corporation referred the complaint to the Vigilance Department and Vigilance Department submitted its report dated 15.5.2008 indicating prima facie involvement of the workman. It is therefore, clear that even after having received the report from the Vigilance Commission the Corporation had not acted promptly so as to finalize the process of holding inquiry as no chargesheet has till date been issued to the delinquent respondent. (4) After receipt of the show cause notice dated 24.10.2008, the respondent has not received any chargesheet or documents from the Corporation. 7. It is not disputed that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to the Corporation and Corporation is bound by the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 8. In view of this, issuance of show cause notice at a belated stage would not be sufficient to withhold the gratuity amount and that would hamper and defeat the very purpose of Payment of Gratuity Act. 9. This Court is of the opinion that the orders passed by the authorities below did not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitions are therefore required to be dismissed as having no merits and accordingly they are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs." 8. It is pertinent that the order dated 31.3.2010 came to be passed by the Controlling Authority after taking into account above quoted order dated 8.7.2009 passed by this Court. The petitions are therefore required to be dismissed as having no merits and accordingly they are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs." 8. It is pertinent that the order dated 31.3.2010 came to be passed by the Controlling Authority after taking into account above quoted order dated 8.7.2009 passed by this Court. 8.1 From the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority and from the above mentioned order dated 8.7.2009 passed by this Court in above mentioned two petitions, it has emerged that the corporation caused delay in payment of gratuity to the claimant and thereafter when the corporation paid the gratuity to the claimant, it was required to be paid with interest, however, the corporation did not pay full amount towards interest which compelled the claimant to file the miscellaneous application. 8.2 During hearing of the said miscellaneous application, the Controlling Authority found that the corporation had committed delay, initially in payment of gratuity and thereafter the corporation had not complied the direction with regard to payment of interest and caused delay in payment of interest, as a result of which the claimant was entitled for interest until complete amount came to be paid by the corporation. 8.3 After examining the facts, the Controlling Authority found that the amount of gratuity and interest was paid to the claimant by 3.12.2008 and the balance amount was paid/deposited by the corporation on 14.10.2009. 8.4 Therefore, the authority directed the petitioner corporation to pay interest for the delay caused from 3.12.2008 to 14.10.2009. 9. At the time of hearing of this petition, learned advocate for the petitioner corporation has failed to point out any error in the order dated 31.7.2010 passed by the Controlling Authority. 9.1 Neither any error of calculation nor any error with regard to the decision by the Controlling Authority is established by the petitioner corporation. 9.2 The petitioner corporation has also failed to satisfy the Court that it had not caused delay in payment of gratuity and/or interest and/or in compliance of earlier order of the Controlling Authority. 9.3 The factum of delay in payment of gratuity and thereafter in complying authority's order is established. Actually said fact is not disputed even by the corporation. Therefore, the corporation is obliged to pay interest. The authority has determined the period for which interest must be paid. The authority has quantified the amount. 9.3 The factum of delay in payment of gratuity and thereafter in complying authority's order is established. Actually said fact is not disputed even by the corporation. Therefore, the corporation is obliged to pay interest. The authority has determined the period for which interest must be paid. The authority has quantified the amount. The corporation has failed to establish that there is any error in determination of the period or the amount (payable towards interest as per the calculation by the authority). Any ground to interfere with said decision and/or quantification is not made out. 9.4 Therefore, the petition is not sustainable and deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.