JUDGMENT : Ved Prakash Vaish, J. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or order for directing the respondents to release the balance amount of the gratuity sanctioned by the respondents. 2. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Lot Mondol, Land Reforms Branch of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council on 04th January, 1971. The petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 4 and subsequently the petitioner had joined the office of the respondent and served till his retirement. 3. On attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner retired from service on 30th April, 2009 as Lot Mondol of Land Record Branch, of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, however, retiral benefits were not paid by the respondents for almost 21(twenty one) months after his retirement. The respondent No. 4 vide order dated 24th January, 2011 sanctioned a sum of Rs. 4,75,380/- (Rupees Four lacs Seventy Five Thousand Three Hundred Eighty only) towards the amount of gratuity and a sum of Rs. 1,58,460/- (Rupees One lac Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty only) being the amount of leave salary and the said amount was payable in three equal installments. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that despite repeated requests the amount of gratuity and leave salary was not released by the respondents. The respondents paid the amount of Rs. 1, 58,460/- (Rupees One lac Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty only) towards the leave salary in the year 2012 and Rs. 3, 16,920/- (Rupees Three lacs Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty only) was paid in two installments on 14.06.2011 and 26.04.2014 towards the amount of gratuity and the petitioner was assured that the balance amount of gratuity would be released at the earliest. However, the balance amount of gratuity was not release by the respondents and the balance amount of gratuity of Rs. 1, 58,460/- (Rupees One lac Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty only) was paid by the respondents on 1st November, 2016. The counsel for petitioner has filed an affidavit in this regard today. 5. The respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition and have opposed the petition. It is stated by the respondents that the process and formalities to assess the amount regarding leave salary and gratuity and for obtaining the sanction of the authority takes time. The counsel for petitioner has filed an affidavit in this regard today. 5. The respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition and have opposed the petition. It is stated by the respondents that the process and formalities to assess the amount regarding leave salary and gratuity and for obtaining the sanction of the authority takes time. It is stated that the petitioner never approached the respondents in this connection. It is also stated that the respondents have paid the leave salary on 26th April, 2014 and the first installment of gratuity of Rs. 1, 58,460/- (Rupees One lac Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty only) was paid on 26th April, 2014. The second installment of gratuity of Rs. 1, 58,460/- (Rupees One lac Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty only) was paid on 14th June, 2011 and last installment of gratuity of Rs. 1, 58,460/- (Rupees One lac Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty only) was paid on 01st November, 2016. 6. Learned counsel for respondents urged that the petitioner is not entitled to any interest as the petitioner has not claimed the amount of interest. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the materials on record. 8. Undisputedly, the amount of leave salary and the amount of gratuity have been paid by the respondents. However, the amount of gratuity was paid on 14.06.2011, 26.04.2014 and the last installment of Rs. 1,58,460/- was paid on 01st November, 2016 i.e. after filing of the present writ petition. Thus, the limited issue remains regarding entitlement of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. 9. The petitioner though not claimed interest in the writ petition, however, while placing reliance on the judgement in the case of 'M/s Champaran Sugar Co. Ltd v. Joint Labour Commissioner And Appellate Authority And Others' reported as AIR 1987 PATNA 96 (Full Bench), learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is entitled for interest as there was delay in payment of gratuity to him. Ltd v. Joint Labour Commissioner And Appellate Authority And Others' reported as AIR 1987 PATNA 96 (Full Bench), learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is entitled for interest as there was delay in payment of gratuity to him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case considered the question whether The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 envisages the grant of interest on delayed payments of gratuity to an employee and held that the right of interest on delayed payment of gratuity is statutory and the same can be granted in the absence of an express claim therefore in the application of the employee. It was further held that if the basic claim of gratuity accrues irrespective of any application or express claim on behalf of the employee, it is somewhat elementary that the consequential claim of interest for delayed payment would equally accrue without any express claim there for. 10. section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provide for determination of the amount of gratuity and the payment thereof, which is reproduced hereunder: "7. Determination of the amount of gratuity: (1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed, for payment of such gratuity. (2) As soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer shall, whether an application referred to in sub-section (1) has been made or not, determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined. (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable. (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable. (3A) 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. (4)(a) If there is any dispute to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under this Act or as to the admissibility of any claim of, or in relation to, an employee for payment of gratuity, or as to the person entitled to received the gratuity, the employer shall deposit with the controlling authority such amount as he admits to be payable by him as gratuity. (b)......... (c)......... (d)......... (e)......... (5)......... (6)......... (7)......... (8)........" 11. A perusal of sub-section (2) of Section-7 clearly reveals that it is the onerous responsibility of the employer to determine the amount of gratuity payable to a retiring employee. Sub-section-(3) of Section-7 enjoins a further responsibility on the employer, to disburse the amount of gratuity payable to an employee, within 30(thirty) days from the date it becomes payable. Since the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 31st December, 2011, it is apparent, that gratuity had become payable to him on 31st December, 2011. Accordingly, the same ought to have be calculated in terms of sub-section (2) of Section-7 of the Gratuity Act, and should have been dispersed to the petitioner by 31st January, 2012 in terms of sub-section-(3) of Section-7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 12. Sub-section-(3-A) of Section-7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is the most relevant provision for the determination of the controversy in hand. 12. Sub-section-(3-A) of Section-7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is the most relevant provision for the determination of the controversy in hand. A perusal of sub-section (3-A) of the Act leaves no room for any doubt, that in case gratuity is not released to an employee within 30(thirty) days from the date the same becomes payable under sub-section (3) of Section-7, the employee in question would be entitled to : "..........simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term loans as the Government may, by notification specify......." 13. There is, however, one exception to the payment of interest envisaged under sub-section (3) of Section-7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The said exception is provided for in the proviso under sub-section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Act. A perusal of the said proviso reveals, that no interest would be payable : "........ if the delay in 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......." The exception contemplated in the proviso under sub-section (3-A) of Section-7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, incorporates two ingredients. Where the two ingredients contemplated in the proviso under sub-section (3-A) of Section-7 of the said Act are fulfilled, the concerned employee can be denied interest despite delayed payment of gratuity. 14. In the case of 'D.S Nakara v. Union of India' reported as 1983 SCR (2) 165, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. 15. The retiral benefits are not bounty but a right earned by the employee and thus it is deferred wages payable to a Government servant in lieu of considerable length of service rendered by an employee to the employer. The quantum of retiral benefits although is governed by statutory rules but it is clear that Government servant has a legal right to receive his retiral benefits as soon as he retires. 16. The quantum of retiral benefits although is governed by statutory rules but it is clear that Government servant has a legal right to receive his retiral benefits as soon as he retires. 16. Since the date of retirement is known to the respondents well in advance, there is no reason for them not to make arrangement for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner well in advance so that as soon as the employee retires, his retiral benefits are paid on the date of retirement or within a reasonable time thereafter. Inaction and inordinate delay in payment of retiral benefits is nothing but culpable delay warranting liability of interest on such dues. Assigning the reason like, the financial position of the concerned department or there is financial crunch cannot be accepted and will not save the respondent authorities from the liability from payment of interest. 17. In the case of 'State of Kerala and Others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair' reported as (1985) 1 SCC 429 , the Honble Supreme Court held as follows: "2......... Since the date of retirement of every Government servant is very much known in advance we fail to appreciate why the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of these two documents should not be completed at least a week before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amount could be made to the Government servant on the date he retires or on the following day and pension at the expiry of the following month. The necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over-emphasised and it would not be unreasonable to direct that the liability to pay penal interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement". 18. The salient ingredients of the proviso under sub-section (3-A) of section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is clearly not satisfy in the present case and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied interest under the proviso to Section-7 (3-A) of the said Act. 19. In view of the settled position of law in 'M/S CHAMPARAN SUGAR CO. LTD's (supra) that has been discussed herein above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits/gratuity. 20. 19. In view of the settled position of law in 'M/S CHAMPARAN SUGAR CO. LTD's (supra) that has been discussed herein above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits/gratuity. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner interest on the amount of gratuity @ 8% per annum from the date same became payable till the date of payment. No order as to costs. 21. The writ petition stands disposed of.