ORDER : SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The brief facts arising from this writ petition are that the petitioner has filed an application before the Controller under the payment of Gratuity's Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1972) by filing a suit PGA 5/2008 which came to be decided by order dated 02.11.2012. It was stated therein that the petitioner was appointed as a Teacher and he retired on 14.1.1994 on attaining superannuation as senior teacher from the respondent school. Under the Act of 1989 (Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989) and rules of 1993 he was entitled to receive gratuity as he was against an aided post. Rule 82 of the Rules of 1993 has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Considering these circumstances, and considering the fact that the application for claiming gratuity was moved only on 22.5.2008 the controlling authority proceeded to grant gratuity along with interest only from the date of filing of the claim petition with interest @10%. A direction was specifically issued of releasing amount of Rs.1,11,092 with interest @ 10% within sixty days from the date of passing of the order dated 02.11.2012. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order was challenged by the respondents before this Court in S.B. CWP No. 8863/2013 which came to be decided on 11.12.2013. And following directions were passed:- "In view of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is disposed of and it is directed that the petitioner-institution shall make payment of retiral dues to the respondent No. 1 employee before the respondent No. 2 within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it and shall make an application before the State Government claiming reimbursement of such amount paid in proportion of grant-in-aid payable to it at the relevant time. The State Government would examine the application of the petitioner-institution and also the proofs of payment submitted there with and do the needful to reimburse such claim before it." 5. The State Government would examine the application of the petitioner-institution and also the proofs of payment submitted there with and do the needful to reimburse such claim before it." 5. It is further submitted that the controlling authority has wrongly granted 10% interest only from the date of filing of claim and it should have been from the date he attained superannuation i.e. 14.1.1994 because the respondents were under an obligation to release the gratuity immediately on the date of retirement and the same could not have been wrongfully withheld. It is further pointed out that under Section 34 of the Act of 1972 interest is required to be paid on delayed payment of gratuity amount. Merely because the petitioner has filed claim petition in the year 2008, the respondents cannot be absolved of the responsibility to pay interest thereto. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has objected to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the fact that earlier writ petition has already been decided where both the parties appeared and contested the matter. 7. It has been pointed out while earlier writ petition was decided on 11.12.2013, the present writ petition has been filed on 22.9.2014 and the petitioner has not raised the dispute earlier. It is submitted that the successive writ petition relating to the same impugned order could not be filed. It is further objected by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petition also suffers from latches. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has further stated that they have paid Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner along with 10% interest thereto. 9. A total amount of Rs.70,750/- was paid to the petitioner on 18.12.2014. On a specific query made by the court, the counsel for the respondents admits that the amount is less than what was directed by the Controlling Authority in its order dated 02.11.2012. However, no reasons have come forward as to why the amount was reduced in spite of the fact that this Court has uphold the order in the writ petition filed by them vide order dated 11.12.2013. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner also has objected to the submissions revealed by the respondents that such objections regarding latches as well as successive petitioner were not taken by the respondents in their reply and the same cannot be looked into at this stage of final arguments. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner also has objected to the submissions revealed by the respondents that such objections regarding latches as well as successive petitioner were not taken by the respondents in their reply and the same cannot be looked into at this stage of final arguments. 10. I have reflected on the matter and the facts of the case as well as the submissions made by both the parties. 11. It is a case where the petitioner who retired on 14.1.1994 as senior teacher did not file any claim for his gratuity till 2008. Taking this aspect into consideration, the authority had granted interest only from the date of submission of his claim. A look at rule 7 of the Act of 1972 needs to be quoted:- 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 (I) 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-A) If the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section (2) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3) the employer shall pay, form 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, be notification specify:" From above, it is apparent that the gratuity is payable from the date when the employee attains superannuation and within the 30 days from that date the same is required to be paid by the employee. The Act also provides for payment of simple interest as such not to exceed to the rate specified by the central government form time to time, if the gratuity is not paid within the aforesaid period. 12. A proviso to Section 3-A also provides that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in payment is due to fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment. Admittedly, neither the employer moved any such application for delayed payment of gratuity nor there is any such fact which had come on record. 13. In view of there being specific provision under the Act of 1972 for payment of simple interest I find that the order passed by the controlling authority cannot be sustained in law and he could not have modified the provisions of the Act by making interest payable only from the date of submission of claim petition. There is no discretion available to the controlling authority while deciding a claim to bye pass the provisions of the Act of 1972 and therefore, the interest was required to be paid from the date the petitioner moved an application when the petitioner attained superannuation on 14.1.1994 itself. 14. To this extent the order dated 02.11.2012 is required to be modified. 15. It is further seen that in spite of the challenge made by the respondents before this Court and specific directions issued by the Court to pay the amount within one month the respondents have not paid the amount even till date and by their own will they have reduced the amount to Rs.50,000/- which clearly shows disrespect to the court's order. 16. In the circumstances, therefore, the objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding latches on part of the petitioner would not apply as it is clearly seen that they have not paid the amount of gratuity which admittedly was withheld by them since 1994 and the employee is not required to knock the doors of justice for payment of his dues which come within the definition of personal property. As per Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be allowed to be withheld without following due procedure of law. 17. As per Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be allowed to be withheld without following due procedure of law. 17. In view of the position as stated above, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to release the amount immediately and forthwith within the period of two weeks from the date of passing of this order failing which they will also pay an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner for non-compliance of the order passed earlier by this court in writ petition no. 8863/2013 and also the interest be paid on the sum of Rs.1,11,092 @ of 10% from the date of superannuation i.e. from 14.1.1994.