JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. 1. Writ Petition No. 40214 of 2013 has been filed by the M/s British India Corporation Ltd., the employer against the order dated 28.02.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), (herein-after referred to as "respondent No. 3") in favour of the Brahma Prakash Shukla, (herein-after referred to as "the employee") and the recovery order dated 05.03.2013. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that the employee was engaged as Supervisor in the Company since 1969 and he retired on 14.12.2007. Against the notice issued to him for his superannuation the employee filed Writ Petition No. 60393 of 2007 challenging his age of superannuation and due to pendency of the said writ petition, the employee avoided receiving gratuity and avoided handing over the charge to the Company. 3. On 03.05.2010, respondent No. 4 filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 claiming an amount of Rs. 1,64,461/- (Rupees One lac sixty four thousand four hundred sixty one) along with interest and even though the petitioner filed its objections to the said application, respondent No. 5 passed an order dated 25.08.2011 directing the Company to make payment of Rs. 1,64,461/- (Rupees One lac sixty four thousand four hundred sixty one). However, the Controlling Authority did not pass any order for payment of interest. 4. The employee thereafter filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority, respondent no. 3, against the order dated 25.08.2011 claiming interest at the rate of 10% for the period with effect from which the gratuity became payable upto the date of payment being made. The petitioner filed objections stating that interest is not payable on the alleged late payment of gratuity, where delay is caused due to fault of the employee, but the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the employee on 28.02.2013 directing payment of gratuity along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. 5. It is the case of the petitioner as stated in the writ petition that the employee was at fault in not handing over charge on attaining the age of superannuation on 14.12.2007 and he actually handed over charge only on 19.03.2013 because he had raised a dispute regarding his age of superannuation. 6. 5. It is the case of the petitioner as stated in the writ petition that the employee was at fault in not handing over charge on attaining the age of superannuation on 14.12.2007 and he actually handed over charge only on 19.03.2013 because he had raised a dispute regarding his age of superannuation. 6. Mr Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that under Rule 7 of Rules framed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, an application has to be made by the employee in Form-I within 30 days from the date the gratuity is payable and under Rule 10 (1), if the employee's application is refused to be accepted by the employer, he is at liberty to file such application before the Controlling Authority. The employee retired on 14.12.2007, but did not file any application claiming gratuity from the petitioner and he kept quiet for almost three years and all of sudden filed an application under Form-N before the Controlling Authority on 03.05.2010, which was allowed only to the extent of gratuity claim by the Controlling Authority and the Controlling Authority rightly did not direct payment of interest as the delay was only caused due to the employee not handing over charge of the post till 2013. 7. Mr Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in D. Prasada Rao vs Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Bank, reported in 2003 (97) FLR 97 . 8. Mr Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel, who appears for the employee, on the other hand has pointed out from the order dated 28.02.2013 that the delay in claiming payment of gratuity was condoned by the Controlling Authority and the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 28.05.2011 and it became final, insofar as admissibility of the claim of the employee for gratuity of Rs. 1,64,461/- (Rupees One lac sixty four thousand four hundred sixty one) is concerned. 9. Learned counsel for the employee has argued that at the time of filing of the said Writ Petition No. 40214 of 2013, this Court had directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,64,461/- (Rupees One lac sixty four thousand four hundred sixty one), which is the gratuity admittedly payable to the employee, whereas recovery of interest awarded by the Appellate Authority was to remain stayed till further orders of the Court. 10. 1,64,461/- (Rupees One lac sixty four thousand four hundred sixty one), which is the gratuity admittedly payable to the employee, whereas recovery of interest awarded by the Appellate Authority was to remain stayed till further orders of the Court. 10. In compliance of the order passed on 25.07.2013 in Writ Petition No. 40214 of 2013, payment of Rs. 1,64,461/- (Rupees One lac sixty four thousand four hundred sixty one) had already been made to the employee and the question before this Court is "whether the Controlling Authority in exercise of its statutory function had a discretion to withhold payment of interest, which is statutorily payable to the employee in case of delayed payment of Gratuity?" 11. Mr Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the employee has argued that the Appellate Authority has taken into account section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the liability cast upon the employer to make payment of gratuity to an employee, even if an employee does not claim such payment within time. 12. Mr Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for employee has argued that under section 7 (1) of the Act, a duty is cast upon the employee to move an application claiming payment of gratuity no doubt, but under section 7 (2) even when the employee does not make such an application, the employer has to calculate the gratuity payable and pay the same within time. Under section 7(3-A) of the Act, the proviso permits only one condition in which interest shall not be payable on delayed payment of gratuity, which is also coupled with the duty of the employer to seek permission from the Controlling Authority for not making of payment of gratuity in time. 13. It is the case of the employee that the Act shall have primacy over the Rules and the Act does not permit the employer to withhold payment of gratuity on any condition except on the ground mentioned in proviso to section 7 (3-A) of the Act. 14. Learned counsel for employee has also submitted that under section 7(4) gratuity becomes payable by the operation of the Act and nothing more needs to be done as it is a mandatory duty cast upon the employer to calculate the gratuity within the time frame prescribed under the Act and to deposit such payment with the Controlling Authority in case the employee fails to receive payment for any reason whatsoever. Moreover, the Controlling Authority having condoned the delay in moving of the application by employee and the Company not filing any Appeal against such condonation of delay, it was not open for the Company to now submit that since the employee never claimed gratuity when it became payable to him, it was not open for him to straightway approach the Controlling Authority by filing application under Form-N without first making such demand from the employer. 15. Mr Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the employee has also pointed out from various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is a statutory liability cast upon the employer to pay interest on delayed payment and the Controlling Authority could not have refused such payment on the alleged ground that employee himself was the cause of delay. 16. In any case, in the writ petition of the employee challenging the date of superannuation, namely, Writ Petition No. 60393 of 2007, no interim orders were passed and the employee retired on 14.12.2007 itself. From the date of retirement of employee, the liability to pay gratuity arose and only because of pending litigation, such payment could not have been withheld by the employer. 17. In Writ C No. 35718 of 2017, Brahma Prakash Shukla, the employee has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act dated 26.04.2017 to the extent it denied payment of interest to the employee for the amount of gratuity, which became admissible in pursuance of the revision of pay of the employee on the basis of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.02.2014 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 408 of 2011 arising out of orders passed by it in Writ C No. 427 of 1999 (National Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Undertakings & others vs Union of India). 18. It has been submitted by the employee Brahma Prakash Shukla that in the writ petition filed by the National Confederation of Officers Association as aforesaid, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed payment of revised Pay-scales to the Officers and employees of Public Sector Undertakings as recommended by the IVth Pay Commission and Vth Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and 01.07.1998 respectively. In pursuance of the said directions, the initial gratuity payable to the employee, Brahma Prakash Shukla on the basis of Last Pay Certificate of Rs. 7501/- per month was revised to Rs. In pursuance of the said directions, the initial gratuity payable to the employee, Brahma Prakash Shukla on the basis of Last Pay Certificate of Rs. 7501/- per month was revised to Rs. 13,915/- per month and in the affidavit filed by the Company before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.A. No. 7 of 2015, it had been admitted by the Company that on the basis of IVth and Vth Pay Commission Recommendation, arrears of salary to the tune of Rs.2,13,764/- (Rupees two lac, thirteen thousand, seven hundred sixty four) became payable to him. On the basis of revision of salary, Rs. 1,60,000/- became payable towards difference of gratuity, for which the employee preferred an application in Form-N under Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity Central Rules, 1972 before the Controlling Authority.. The Controlling Authority in its order dated 29.09.2016 allowed payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- as arrears of gratuity on revised pay, but at the same time denied payment of interest w.e.f. 14.01.2008 and restricted such payment of interest only w.e.f. 03.04.2014, the date of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition. 19. Mr Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel while arguing on behalf of employee in Writ Petition No. 35718 of 2017 has pointed out that revised salary became payable from the date when Pay Scale stood revised in terms of IVth and Vth Pay Commissions Recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and 01.07.1998 respectively. Therefore, at the time when the employee retired on 14.12.2007 his Last Pay Certificate stood automatically revised from Rs. 7501.75/- to Rs. 13915/- per month and therefore, on the revised Pay Scale, the employee became entitled to receive Rs. 1,60,000/- towards the difference of gratuity w.e.f. 14.01.2008 i.e. after one month of his retirement and the Controlling Authority wrongly mentioned the date of revised gratuity becoming admissible as 03.04.2013 i.e. the date of order passed in Contempt Petition No. 408 of 2011 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The order passed by the Controlling Authority dated 29.09.2016 was therefore, challenged by the employee before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority wrongly observed that because Writ Petition No. 40214 of 2013 (M/s British India Corporation Ltd. Vs Collector and Others) filed by the employer challenging payment of interest for delayed payment was still pending before this Court, payment of interest on difference of gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,60,000/- shall also be subject to the outcome of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 40214 of 2013. 20. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the employee that since difference of gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,60,000/- became payable as soon as pay of the petitioner was revised in terms of the order passed by the Hob'ble Supreme Court and delay was caused by the employer in not paying the said amount, interest on delayed payment also became a statutory liability and the same could not have been withheld. The question regarding payment of interest for delayed payment with respect to Rs. 1,64,461/-. The initial amount of gratuity was independent of the question regarding delayed payment of interest on revised gratuity as it also became payable to the petitioner on the date of retirement of the petitioner. 21. Mr Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel of the Company on the other hand has submitted that the Company was sick and its matter was pending before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and it had taken a policy decision not to pay the revised Pay Scales as per IVth and Vth Pay Commissions Recommendations to its employees. It was only because of the order passed in adjudication by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ C No. 427 of 1999 filed by the National Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Undertakings and the order passed in Contempt Petition No. 408 of 2011 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13.02.2014 that IVth and Vth Pay Commissions Recommendations became applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and 01.07.1998 respectively. The liability could therefore, have arisen for payment of difference of amount of gratuity only w.e.f. 13.02.2014. 22. Mr Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel has argued that at the time when the petitioner-Brahma Prakash Shukla retired his Pay Scale was Rs. 7501.75/- per month only and after the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition on 13.02.2014, the employee had filed LCA No. 29 of 2015 under section 33-C(2) for Computation of Revised Pay at the rate of Rs. 13915/- and the said case was also pending, until the said case was decided by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and the Pay of the employee was fixed at Rs. 13915/- as claimed by him, no difference in gratuity became payable to him. 13915/- and the said case was also pending, until the said case was decided by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and the Pay of the employee was fixed at Rs. 13915/- as claimed by him, no difference in gratuity became payable to him. The Controlling Authority ought to have dismissed P.G.A. Case No. K-48(16)/2015-E-3 filed by the petitioner on 29.12.2015 at the outset as the pay of the employee had not yet been revised, and therefore, there could not have been any claim or entitlement to Rs. 1,60,000/- towards difference of gratuity. The order of the Controlling Authority for payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- as difference in gratuity and payment of simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum on difference in amount of gratuity w.e.f. 03.04.2014 till the date of actual payment was therefore, without any basis, and therefore, rightly set aside by the Appellate Authority. 23. Mr Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the employee has on the other hand pointed out that the order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the Controlling Authority was not challenged by the Company in Appeal. It was the employee, who had gone in Appeal before the Appellate Authority praying for payment of interest w.e.f. 14.01.2008, the date when initial gratuity of Rs. 1,64,461/- ought to have became payable and in the Appeal filed by the employee, relief could not have been granted to the Company by the Appellate Authority. 24. Mr Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others vs M. Padmanabhan Nair, reported in AIR 1985 SC 356 ; Dr. Uma Agrawal vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1212 and D.D. Tewari (Dead) through Legal Representatives vs Uttar Pradesh Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others reported in 2014 (8) SCC 894 to buttress his arguments that entitlement of gratuity is a statutory entitlement and gratuity becomes payable as soon as conditions mentioned under section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act are fulfilled by the employee. All that is required to be seen by the Controlling Authority is whether the employee was in service of the employer concerned on the date when the Act came into force, and on his superannuation or retirement or resignation or otherwise on his death or disablement, he was covered by the provisions of the Act or not. All that is required to be seen by the Controlling Authority is whether the employee was in service of the employer concerned on the date when the Act came into force, and on his superannuation or retirement or resignation or otherwise on his death or disablement, he was covered by the provisions of the Act or not. Once he is found to be in employment of the establishment and entitled for gratuity after rendering five years of continuous service, payment of gratuity cannot be withheld. There was no dispute regarding computation of gratuity on the basis of length of service and thus, gratuity had to be determined on the basis of sub-section (1) and (2) of section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and should have been paid to the employee by the Company within one month from the date of his retirement. In case of delayed payment, section 7 provided payment of gratuity with interest. 25. Having heard the rival submissions, I have perused the impugned orders in Writ Petition No. 40214 of 2013 and in Writ Petition No. 35718 of 2017. 26. For determination of present controversy, it is relevant to take into consideration of section 7 of the Gratuity Act, which is being extracted herein-under: "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 receive the gratuity, the employer shall deposit with the controlling authority such amount as he admits to be payable by him as gratuity. (b) Where there is a dispute with regard to any matter or matters specified in clause (a), the employer or employee or any other person raising the dispute may make an application to the controlling authority for deciding the dispute. (c)] The controlling authority shall, after due inquiry and after giving the parties to the dispute a reasonable opportunity of being heard, determine the matter or matters in dispute and if, as a result of such inquiry any amount is found to be payable to the employee, the controlling authority shall direct the employer to pay such amount or, as the case may be, such amount as reduced by the amount already deposited by the employer. (d) The controlling authority shall pay the amount deposited, including the excess amount, if any, deposited by the employer, to the person entitled thereto. (d) The controlling authority shall pay the amount deposited, including the excess amount, if any, deposited by the employer, to the person entitled thereto. (e) As soon as may be after a deposit is made under clause (a), the controlling authority shall pay the amount of the deposit-- (i) to the applicant where he is the employee; or (ii) where the applicant is not the employee, to the nominee or, as the case may be, the guardian of such nominee or] heir of the employee if the controlling authority is satisfied that there is no dispute as to the right of the applicant to receive the amount of gratuity. (5) For the purpose of conducting an inquiry under sub-section (4), the controlling authority shall have the same powers as are vested in a court, while trying a suit, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely:-- (a) enforcing the attendance of any person or examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses. (6) Any inquiry under this section shall be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purpose of section 196, of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (6) Any inquiry under this section shall be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purpose of section 196, of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (7) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf: Provided that the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days: [Provided further that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either produces a certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under sub-section (4), or deposits with the appellate authority such amount.] (8) The appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, after giving the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard, confirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the controlling authority." 27. In H. Gangahanume Gowda vs Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. reported in 2003 (3) SCC 40 , the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court placing reliance upon the observations made by it in State of Kerala & Ors. vs. M.Padmanabhan Nayyar, reported in 1985 (1) SCC 429 and observed in paragraph 7 thus: "It is evident from section 7(2) that as soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer, whether any application has been made or not, is obliged to 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. Under section 7(3), the employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable. Under section 7(3), the employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable. Under sub- section 3(A) of Section 7, if the amount of gratuity is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), he 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; 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 that ground. From the provisions made in section 7, a clear command can be seen mandating the employer to pay the gratuity within the specified time and to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. No discretion is available to exempt or relieve the employer from payment of gratuity with or without interest as the case may be. However, under the proviso to section 7(3A), no interest shall be payable if delay in payment of gratuity is due to the fault of the employee and further condition that the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on that ground. Under section 8, provision is made for recovery of gratuity payable under the Act, if not paid by the employer within the prescribed time. The Collector shall recover the amount of gratuity with compound interest thereon as arrears of land revenue and pay the same to the person entitled. A penal provision is also made in Section 9 for non-payment of gratuity. Payment of gratuity with or without interest as the case may be does not lie in the domain of discretion but it is a statutory compulsion. Specific benefits expressly given in a social beneficial legislation cannot be ordinarily denied. Employees on retirement have valuable rights to get gratuity and any culpable delay in payment of gratuity must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest was the view taken in State of Kerala and others vs M. Padmanabhan Nair ( 1985 (1) SCC 429 ." 28. Employees on retirement have valuable rights to get gratuity and any culpable delay in payment of gratuity must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest was the view taken in State of Kerala and others vs M. Padmanabhan Nair ( 1985 (1) SCC 429 ." 28. In the said judgment it was further observed that since the employer did not satisfy the mandatory requirement of the proviso to section 7 (3A), no discretion was left to deny the interest to the appellant on the belated payment of gratuity. 29. In the light of what was stated by it, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Writ Court could not refuse grant of interest exercising its discretion against the mandatory provisions contained in section 7 of the Act. The Division Bench in Appeal also committed an error in assuming that the learned Single Judge could exercise discretion in the manner of awarding interest and as such the discretion exercised was not arbitrary. The employer was directed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 10% on the amount of gratuity to which the appellant was entitled from the date it became payable till the date of payment of gratuity amount along with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. 30. In Kerala State Cashew Dev. Corp. Ltd. & Anr. Versus N. Asokan reported in 2009 (16) SCC 758 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the applicability of section 7(3A) and observed in para 4 thus: "...........On a plain reading of this provision, it is absolutely clear that if any amount of gratuity, which is payable under section 7 is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer is liable to pay interest 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, but on those delayed payment, where the employer has obtained permission in writing from the Controlling authority for delayed payment, in that case, no such interest shall be payable to the employee. So far as the present case is concerned, no such permission was obtained by the employer in writing from the Controlling Authority and, therefore, sub-section (3A) and its term would be squarely applicable in the facts of this case." 31. So far as the present case is concerned, no such permission was obtained by the employer in writing from the Controlling Authority and, therefore, sub-section (3A) and its term would be squarely applicable in the facts of this case." 31. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the Corporation's explanation for non payment for eight years of the amount of gratuity and rejected the explanation of the Corporation that its financial condition was such that it was not in a position to pay gratuity amount to the respondent as a specious plea. 32. In Y.K. Singla vs Punjab National Bank and others, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 472 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a case where on retirement of the appellant on account of pendency of criminal proceedings, gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension, were withheld. Later on appellant was acquitted of the charges framed against him by the Special Judge, CBI. Based on the aforesaid acquittal, the appellant claimed gratuity and other retiral benefits along with interest from the Bank. The Punjab National Bank had adopted the Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 and it referred to the Regulation 46 (2) of 1995 Regulations, which did not make any provision for award of interest in case of delayed payment of gratuity. It was pleaded by the respondent Bank before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that gratuity had been legitimately withheld during the criminal proceedings under the provisions of 1995 Regulations and payment of gratuity to the appellant was not regulated under the Payment of Gratuity Act, therefore, there was no question of payment of interest to the appellant. 33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the right of withhold gratuity is an issue separate and distinct from the question whether an employee, whose gratuity has been withheld under the Regulation 46(2) of the 1995 Regulations, would be entitled to interest on the withheld payment of gratuity if he is found not to be at fault. It observed in paragraph 14 that the 1995 Regulations are silent on the subject of an employee's rights whose gratuity has been withheld, even in circumstances where it has eventually been concluded that he was not at fault. It observed in paragraph 14 that the 1995 Regulations are silent on the subject of an employee's rights whose gratuity has been withheld, even in circumstances where it has eventually been concluded that he was not at fault. The withholding of the gratuity was on account of pendency of criminal proceedings and the appellant was acquitted, later on as such inevitable conclusion would be that the gratuity was withheld without the appellant being at fault. 34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered section 4 and section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and observed that under sub-section (5) of section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, an employee can be permitted to be regulated for the purpose of gratuity under alternative provisions/ arrangement (award or agreement or contract) other than the Gratuity Act, but such applicability of another arrangement was only to ensure that the employee concerned received better terms of gratuity than provided under the Act. An employee, who received gratuity under Provisions other than the Gratuity Act, would still be entitled to better terms of Gratuity Act and this shall constitute one of the foundational basis of the determination. The Regulations having provided for no interest on delayed payment cannot be said to be giving an employee better terms of gratuity than under the Payment of Gratuity Act, and therefore, the Supreme Court held that the Payment of Gratuity Act insofar as it provided grant of payment of interest on delayed payment would have an overriding effect over any such Regulations by which an employee is otherwise governed. 35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that sub-section (2) of section 7 casts an onerous responsibility on the employer to determine amount of gratuity payable to a retiring employee and 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 days from the date it became payable. Sub section (3A) of section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act leaves no room for any doubt that in case gratuity is not released to an employee within 30 days from the date the same becomes payable under sub-section (3), 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 deposits, as the Government may, by notification specify". There is only one exception to the payment of interest envisaged under sub-section (3). The aforesaid exception is provided for in the proviso in sub section (3A) of section 7 of the Act. 36. The Supreme Court observed in paragraph 18 thus: "...........A perusal of the said proviso reveals, that no interest would 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..." The exception contemplated in the proviso under sub-Section (3A) of section 7 of the Gratuity Act, incorporates two ingredients. Where the two ingredients contemplated in the proviso under sub-Section (3A) are fulfilled, the concerned employee can be denied interest despite delayed payment of gratuity. Having carefully examined the proviso under sub-Section (3A) of section 7 of the Gratuity Act, we are of the view, that the first ingredient is, that payment of gratuity to the employee was delayed because of some fault of the employee himself. The second ingredient is, that the controlling authority should have approved, such withholding of gratuity (of the concerned employee) on the basis of the alleged fault of the employee himself. None of the other sub-sections of section 7 of the Gratuity Act, would have the effect of negating the conclusion drawn hereinabove." 37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforecited judgment of Y.K. Singla (supra)also observed that a perusal of section 14 leaves no room for any doubt that superior status has been vested on the provisions of Gratuity Act viz-a-viz any other enactment inconsistent therewith. From the mandate of section 14 of the Gratuty Act, it is imperative to further conclude that the provisions of Gratuity Act would have overriding effect with reference any inconsistency therewith in any other provision or instrument. From the mandate of section 14 of the Gratuty Act, it is imperative to further conclude that the provisions of Gratuity Act would have overriding effect with reference any inconsistency therewith in any other provision or instrument. Thus viewed, even if the provisions of the 1995 Regulations had debarred payment of interest on account of delayed payment of gratuity, the same would have become inconsequential. The benefit of interest enuring to an employee, as has been contemplated under section 7 (3A) of the Gratuity Act, cannot be denied to an employee, whose gratuity is regulated by some provision/instrument other than the Gratuity Act. 38. In the impugned order dated 28.02.2013 in Writ Petition No. 40214 of 2013, the Appellate Authority has allowed the Appeal of the employee on the ground that it was an admitted fact that gratuity determined by the Controlling Authority on the basis of parameters as defined under section 4(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act was payable w.e.f. 14.01.2008 to the employee concerned. There was no dispute on the subject of entitlement or on the last wages drawn nor it was disputed that gratuity was not paid to the employee within time by the Company. 39. It was observed that under section 7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, there is statutory liability cast upon the employer to make payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity and the proviso thereof does not permit the employer to withhold gratuity payable to any employee without any specific order passed by the Controlling Authority on an application so made by the employer to it. Neither did employer approach the Controlling Authority nor any specific order was passed by the Controlling Authority permitting withholding of payment of gratuity to the affected employee. 40. In the case of the petitioner, the essential ingredients mentioned in the proviso to section (3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act had not been met by the employer, and therefore, the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to withhold interest on delayed payment of gratuity. 41. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that with regard to fault as alleged on the part of the employee because of which payment of gratuity was withheld by the company i.e. non-submission of charge at the time of retirement, the Company did not comply with the provisions of section 7(4)(a). 41. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that with regard to fault as alleged on the part of the employee because of which payment of gratuity was withheld by the company i.e. non-submission of charge at the time of retirement, the Company did not comply with the provisions of section 7(4)(a). The Management should have deposited the admitted amount of gratuity with the Controlling Authority, which condition was also not complied with by the Company. The entitlement of payment of gratuity being established under the Act, interest on delayed payment of gratuity is a natural consequence unless it was proved that the delay was caused on the part of employee, which in this case the Company could not prove before the Authority concerned. 42. The writ petition No. 40214 of 2013 is liable to be dismissed and is hence dismissed. 43. Insofar as the Writ Petition No. 35718 of 2017 is concerned, the Controlling Authority had granted interest to the employee with effect from the date of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the revision in Pay Scale as per the IVth and Vth Central Pay Scale Commissions Recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and 01.07.1998 respectively. The employee retired on 14.12.2007, his unrevised Pay at the time of retirement was Rs. 7501/- per month, and therefore, gratuity determined was Rs. 1,64,461/-. On the basis of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition No. 408 of 2011 his pay should have been revised to Rs. 13915/- per month. The Company had admitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its affidavit that Rs. 2,13,764/- became payable to the employee in terms of difference in salary revised, therefore, difference of gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,60,000/- also became payable with effect from the date of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. w.e.f. 03.04.2014 only. 44. Therefore, the Controlling Authority rightly directed payment of 10% simple interest on Rs. 1,60,000/- w.e.f. 03.04.2014 till actual date of payment. 1,60,000/- also became payable with effect from the date of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. w.e.f. 03.04.2014 only. 44. Therefore, the Controlling Authority rightly directed payment of 10% simple interest on Rs. 1,60,000/- w.e.f. 03.04.2014 till actual date of payment. In Appeal filed by the employee seeking payment of 10% interest on difference in amount of gratuity w.e.f. 14.01.2008 his claim was rejected by the Appellate Authority, but at the same time, the Appellate Authority has arbitrarily held that since interest payment on the original amount of gratuity payable to the employee is still sub judice in Writ Petition No. 40214 of 2013, the payment of interest on difference in amount of gratuity shall also be subject to the outcome of the writ petition pending before this Court. The claim of the employee for interest of 10% on the difference in amount of gratuity was an independent and separate claim and it could not have been clubbed with the dispute pending before this Court in Writ Petition No. 40214 of 2013. 45. Reliance placed by Mr Chandra Bhan Gupta on judgment rendered by the Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in D. Prasada Rao vs Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Bank, (supra) is misconceived. The judgment is clearly per in curium as it does not consider the binding precedents of Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed herein above. 46. The order passed by the Appellate Authority is therefore set aside. 47. The interest shall be payable to the petitioner on the revised/difference in amount of gratuity only with effect from the date when the Supreme Court in adjudication had directed payment of revised Pay Scale in terms of IVth and Vth Pay Commissions Recommendations, and the order passed by the Controlling Authority in this regard dated 29.09.2016 is affirmed. 48. The writ petition No. 35718 of 2017 is disposed of.