JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. TD Majumder, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged for full and final payment of the gratuity with interest @10% per annum w.e.f. 01.07.2016 till payment is made. The petitioner has urged for release of the arrear pay and allowances in terms of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 for the period from October, 1998 to August, 1999 i.e. for eleven (11) months. 3. Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner retired from the service as Helper under the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 on 31.03.2016 and as such the payment of the gratuity fell due w.e.f. 01.05.2016, but the respondents did not pay the gratuity or communicate anything to the petitioner in respect such payment before 17.01.2017 meaning after filing of the writ petition. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to interest for the period from 01.05.2016 to 17.01.2017 at the rate as declared by the Government of Tripura in the Finance Department by their notification dated 08.04.1997 whereby the rate has been prescribed for the delayed payment of the gratuity as follows: “4. The prescribe rate of interest will be: a. beyond 3 month after the gratuity becomes due and up to one year 7% per annum. b. beyond one year, 10% per annum The interest would be payable till the end of month in which the payment of DCR gratuity is actually due. c. The period of 3 months shall be reckoned from the date of retirement/death, for payment of interest. d. This will come into force with immediate effect”. The said notification dated 08.04.1997 (Annexure P-8 to the writ petition) has not been questioned by the petitioner, even though Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the interest for non-payment of the gratuity should start immediately after 30 days, but this notification clearly stipulates that the interest will only be applicable “beyond 3 months” after gratuity becomes due and upto one year 7% per annum. There is no interest prescribed immediately after 30 days. 4. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the interest for non-payment of the gratuity should start immediately after 30 days, but this notification clearly stipulates that the interest will only be applicable “beyond 3 months” after gratuity becomes due and upto one year 7% per annum. There is no interest prescribed immediately after 30 days. 4. The respondents No.2 and 3 by filing their reply has clearly stated as under: “.. the writ petition filed by the petitioner has already become infructuous and as such, is not maintainable in law for the reason that the answering respondents requested the petitioner over telephone as well as by registered letter dated 17.01.2017 to receive the cheque of Rs.4,05,397/- towards his gratuity amount from the cash section of respondent No.2 immediately during office hours. The answering respondents also decided that the due arrear amount as per R.O.P-1999 would also be paid along with the gratuity amount. But the petitioner has yet not come to receive the amounts. If the petitioner disputes regarding the amount of gratuity as sanctioned and offered, he may apply as per Sub-section 4(b) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to the Controlling Authority for deciding the dispute. Had there been no petition in this regard before this Hon’ble High Court, the answering respondents could have deposited the amount with the Controlling Authority as per Sub-section 4(a) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. So, it is not correct that the answering respondents are reluctant in disbursing the gratuity amount and the arrear amount due by the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner is reluctant to receive the amounts. Therefore, the present writ petition has become infructuous and as such, not maintainable in law. The reason for decision for delayed payment of the said amounts are stated in paragraph 4(b) below”. ” 5. Since the respondents No.2 and 3 has clearly stated that they had also decided that the due arrear amount as per R.O.P, 1999 should also be paid along with the gratuity and for that reason,, so far that relief is concerned it has become infructuous. Now, the sole question that remains to be considered by this court is that “whether the petitioner is entitled to get any interest for belated payment of the gratuity”. 6. Now, the sole question that remains to be considered by this court is that “whether the petitioner is entitled to get any interest for belated payment of the gratuity”. 6. For that purpose the communication dated 17.01.2017 may be treated as a notice for accepting for payment of gratuity and as such the period that is relevant in the context is from 01.06.2016 to 16.01.2017. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1973, provides that 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; Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground. 7. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4 has contended that the petitioner was departmentally charged and enquired into and by the demand notice a sum of Rs. 1,23,591/- was claimed from the petitioner. However, the petitioner had denied to pay the said amount. As per the provision of Tripura State Co-operative Societies Act, 1974, the dispute was referred to the respondent No.2, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. After the due inquiry by the order dated 20.02.2004, the petitioner was held guilty and he was directed to pay Rs. 1,22,243.55 to the respondent No.2 within a period of 12 months. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Tripura Co-operative Tribunal being Tribunal Appeal No. 09 of 2004. There is no dispute that by the judgment and order dated 23.07.2016, the order passed by the respondent No.2, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has been set aside. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has further submitted that till the demand was not decided by the appellate authority, the payment of the gratuity could not be settled. There is no dispute that by the judgment and order dated 23.07.2016, the order passed by the respondent No.2, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has been set aside. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has further submitted that till the demand was not decided by the appellate authority, the payment of the gratuity could not be settled. According to him, the certified copy of the judgment and order of the Tripura Co-operative Tribunal was available to them on 17.02.2017. Strangely, the communication for payment of the gratuity was made on 17.01.2017 i.e. a clear one month before the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 23.07.2016 was received by the respondents No. 2 and 3. As such that plea cannot be entertained by this court. 8. The explanation that has been given for not paying the gratuity till 23.07.2016 according to the court may in certain circumstances be permissible by virtue of proviso below Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The respondent No.2 did not take leave from the Controlling Authority, as notified by the Government of Tripura. Thus, the period after 23.07.2016 cannot allowed to be explained in the manner as stated by the said respondents. The payment of gratuity fell due on 23.07.2016 though actually it fell due on 01.05.2016 as thereafter, there was no impediment. They could have paid the gratuity. So, for the period from 24.07.2016 to 16.01.2017, the petitioner would be entitled to interest on the entire amount of gratuity @7% per annum according to that notification. Hence, the respondents No. 2 and 3 are hereby directed to pay the petitioner interest @7% for the period from 24.07.2016 to 16.01.2017 within a period of 6(six) weeks from the day when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order. So far the payment of the arrears in terms of the ROP Rules, 1999, the respondents shall make all endeavour to pay the arrears as they have decided to pay the same within a reasonable time but this court will not pass any direction in this regard as this court has declined to pass any order on merit. 9. In view of this above observation and direction this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs.