Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3190 (ALL)

JAGDISH NARAIN TRIPATHI v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-09-19

DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Notice on behalf of opposite parties has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to pay interest upon the amount of Gratuity i.e. Rs. 5,83,517/- to the petitioner under the provisions of Sub-Section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, w.e.f. 1.2.2012 to 2.8.2016, for the period of delay in payment of the same. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Computer in the Tabulation Unit of Board of Revenue, U.P. Later on, on account of closer of Tabulation Unit vide order dated 1.4.1985, the District Magistrate, Mainpuri was directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Investigator. In pursuance thereof, vide appointment order dated 8.7.1985, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Investigator in D.R.D.A. Mainpuri, wherein after serving about 27 years, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.2012. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that another employee of DRDA has filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21610 of 2010 (Yogendra Nath Singh v. State of U.P. and others) for non-payment of gratuity amount, which was decided by this Court on 12.2.2015 thereby holding that the employees of DRDA are entitled for payment of Gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act and, accordingly, this Court, while quashing the order dated 13.1.2010 passed by the Commissioner Village Development, U.P., directed the respondents to make payment of the gratuity to him in the light of the notification dated 6.9.1997 issued by the Central Government within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. Subsequently, issue was again cropped up in view of order dated 1.2.2002 passed by Commissioner, Village Development, U.P., Lucknow, whereby the benefit of payment of gratuity has been denied to the employees of DRDA. 6. Subsequently, issue was again cropped up in view of order dated 1.2.2002 passed by Commissioner, Village Development, U.P., Lucknow, whereby the benefit of payment of gratuity has been denied to the employees of DRDA. 6. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in Writ-A No. 23129 of 2008: Ram Prakash v. State of U.P. and others, this Court, on relying upon the judgment and order dated 12.2.2015, quashed the order dated 1.2.2002 passed by Commissioner, Village Development, U.P., Lucknow and directed the respondents to make payment of the gratuity to the petitioner in the light of the notification dated 6.9.1997 issued by the Central Government within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. 7. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Yogendra Nath Singh (Supra) was assailed by the State authorities by filing of a Special Appeal (D) No. 456 of 2015 (State of U.P. and others v. Yogendra Nath Singh, 2015(6) ADJ 409 (DB) and a Division Bench of this Court has affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. His submission is that though the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.2012, but he was not paid the amount of gratuity, then, he preferred a representation before the competent authority on 18.4.2012 with the prayer for payment of gratuity amount, but no order was passed by the competent authority on the representation of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petition No. -7269 (SS) of 2012 (Jagdish Narain Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others). This Court, after considering the aforesaid judgments, allowed the writ petition vide its judgment and order dated 3.12.2015 and a direction was issued for payment of gratuity amount to the petitioner under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in compliance of order dated 3.12.2015, the respondents have paid the gratuity amount of Rs. 5,83,517/- on 2.8.2016, but no interest has been paid to the petitioner as per provisions of Sub-Section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in compliance of order dated 3.12.2015, the respondents have paid the gratuity amount of Rs. 5,83,517/- on 2.8.2016, but no interest has been paid to the petitioner as per provisions of Sub-Section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition, seeking a direction for payment of interest on delayed payment of interest 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has failed to give any justification for non payment of interest on the delayed payment of amount of gratuity. 10. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Sub-Section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides as under : “if the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify:” 12. From perusal of the aforesaid section of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, it reveals that it is a statutory requirement to pay interest on delayed payment and therefore, while making payment of gratuity in compliance of order dated 3.12.2015 passed by this Court, the respondents ought to have paid the interest. 13. Keeping in view the factual matrix on record, I am of the view that there is a statutory provision which makes it obligatory on the part of every employer to pay an interest as notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, on the delayed payment of gratuity. 14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to examine the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest as per provisions of sub-Section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, with effect from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid and ensure payment of same within a period of three months from the production of a certified copy of this order.