JUDGMENT : 1. In this intra-court appeal, the solitary question of law which arises for consideration is as to whether the retired employee of the Respondent-Federation while being directed to be paid the principal amount of gratuity, can be denied statutory interest admissible and payable u/S 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for brevity "1972 Act") merely on the ground that he was a fence-sitter who filed his Writ Petition in 2017 because after similarly placed employees, who had approached this Court in 2006, were benefited by judgment dated 12.09.2013. 2. The learned Single Judge has partly allowed the petition by directing payment of principal amount of gratuity on the ground that the same is statutory in nature under the 1972 Act but in the same breath has denied the payment of interest on gratuity which is also statutory in nature u/S 7(3 A) of the 1972 Act by holding thus: "6. It is well established principle of law that a petition can be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches and the present petition also suffers from the same. Delay defeats equity. However, similarly placed employees who are the co-accused with the petitioner have been granted benefit of payment of gratuity, this Court does not find any good reason to deprive the petitioner from the said relief. However, the delay in filing the petition would disentitle the petitioner from claiming any interest on the gratuity amount. 7. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since the payment of interest on the gratuity amount is statutory in nature, therefore, that cannot be denied to the petitioner. 8. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 9. It is not a case of withholding of gratuity without any order. In the present case by order dated 11.7.2006, the gratuity amount of the petitioner was forfeited and since the petitioner did not challenge the order of forfeiture of the gratuity for a period of 11 years, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for the interest on the gratuity amount." 3. Thus, the statutory interest u/S 7(3 A) of the 1972 Act has been denied on the ground of failure of petitioner to assail the order of forfeiture of gratuity dated 11.07.2006 (Annexure P-l) within a reasonable time since WP. Thus, the statutory interest u/S 7(3 A) of the 1972 Act has been denied on the ground of failure of petitioner to assail the order of forfeiture of gratuity dated 11.07.2006 (Annexure P-l) within a reasonable time since WP. 17423/2017 was filed after 11 years qua a cause of action which arose in 2006. 4. It is evident from record that the order of forfeiture of gratuity was assailed in Writ Petition in question as Annexure P-1, under relief clause 7.1. 5. The learned Single Judge by allowing payment of principal amount of gratuity has impliedly set aside the impugned order dated 11.07.2006. 5.1 Once the learned Single Judge quashes the impugned order (expressly or by implication) by holding that the amount of gratuity cannot be denied merely on the ground of delayed approach to the court because the same is statutory in nature then the interest accruing and becoming payable to the petitioner u/S 7(3A) also cannot be denied since the same is also statutory in nature under the scheme of 1972 Act. 6. For better appreciation and proper adjudication, Section 7 of the 1972 Act is reproduced below: 7. Determination of the amount of gratuity. (1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this 1972 Act or any person authorised, in writing to 1972 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 subsection (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 as to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under this 1972 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. (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). (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." 7. The aforesaid provision obliges the employer, notwithstanding the employee failing to seek payment of gratuity, to determine the amount of gratuity as soon as it becomes payable [with effect from the date of superannuation i.e. 30.06.2002 herein], and to give notice in writing to the concerned employee and also to the controlling authority specifying the determined amount of gratuity. The employer is thereafter further obliged to arrange for payment of the said determined amount of gratuity due to the employee within 30 days from the date it becomes payable (i.e. latest by 30.07.2002 herein). 7.1 Sub-section (3A) was inter alia introduced u/S 7 with effect from 01.10.1987 by making available the additional benefit of simple interest at the rate notified by the Central Government over and above the principal amount of gratuity payable u/S 7(2) and (3). The object of this amendment was to set off and compensate the loss caused due to unfair labour practices exercised by the employer in delaying payment of gratuity or for unlawful withholding the amount of gratuity save by authority of law. 7.2 Close scrutiny of the language employed by sub-section (3A) of Section 7 of the 1972 Act reveals that it is mandatory in nature obliging the employer to pay simple interest for the period of delay which takes place in the payment of gratuity determined and payable after the expiry of 30 days from the date of retirement (in this case). 7.3 Sub-section (3A) of Section 7 of the 1972 Act is circumscribed to proviso absolving the employer from paying interest if the delay in payment of gratuity determined and payable is due to the fault of the employee and permission in writing for delayed payment is obtained by the employer from the controlling authority. 8. The record reveals and the rival parties do not dispute that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner for the obvious reason that the gratuity was withheld by the impugned order Annexure P-l passed exclusively by employer, which was ultimately found to be unlawful and was set aside in case of similarly placed employees. 9. Admittedly, similarly placed employees had approached the Indore Bench of this Court by preferring WP. 5429/2006 which was allowed on 12.09.2013 by not only quashing similar orders as impugned herein by the petitioner in WP. 9. Admittedly, similarly placed employees had approached the Indore Bench of this Court by preferring WP. 5429/2006 which was allowed on 12.09.2013 by not only quashing similar orders as impugned herein by the petitioner in WP. 17423/2017 but also granting interest at the rate of 12.5% on gratuity amount from the date of retirement till realization. 9.1 Pertinently, the petitioner filed the petition in question in 2017 by relying upon the judgment rendered by the Indore Bench in 2013 in case of similarly placed employees. 10. From aforesaid discussion, what comes out loud and clear is that the principal amount of gratuity determined and payable u/S 7(1) (2) and (3) of the 1972 Act is statutory in nature and there is no limitation prescribed under the 1972 Act for claiming the same. Similarly, the amount of interest payable under sub-section (3A) of Section 7 of the 1972 Act is also statutory in nature. When both i.e. the principal amount of gratuity and the interest accrued thereupon becoming payable due to failure of employer to release gratuity within 30 days of retirement, then it follows as a necessary consequence that the amount of statutory interest worked out and becoming payable u/S 7(3A) becomes part and parcel of the principal amount of gratuity determined and payable u/S 7(1)(2) and (3) of the 1972 Act. 10.1 In view of the above, the said principal amount and interest which are both statutory in nature, become payable under the 1972 Act which does not prescribe any limitation for claiming the same within a certain period of time, the question of denial of the amount of interest becoming payable u/S 7(3 A) of the 1972 Act solely on the ground of delayed claim for the same cannot be countenanced in law. Especially when the delayed claim for gratuity amount is allowed. 11. This Court while taking aforesaid view is bolstered by the decision of Apex Court in the case of "H. Gangahanume Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. [ (2003) 3 SCC 40 ]", relevant portion of which is reproduced below: "7. Especially when the delayed claim for gratuity amount is allowed. 11. This Court while taking aforesaid view is bolstered by the decision of Apex Court in the case of "H. Gangahanume Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. [ (2003) 3 SCC 40 ]", relevant portion of which is reproduced below: "7. 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 subsection (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(3-A), 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. 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 vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair [ 1985 (50) FLR 145 ]. Earlier there was no provision for payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. Sub-section (3-A) was added to Section 7 by an amendment, which came into force with effect from 1-10-1987. In the case of Charan Singh vs. Birla Textiles [ 1988 (57) FLR 543 ] this aspect was noticed in the following words: (SCC pp.214-15, para 4) "4. There was no provision in the Act for payment of interest when the same was quantified by the controlling authority and before the Collector was approached for its realization. In fact, it is on the acceptance of the position that there was a lacuna in the law that Act 22 of 1987 brought about the incorporation of sub-section (3-A) in Section 7. That provision has prospective application." 9. It is clear from what is extracted above from the order of the learned Single Judge that interest on delayed payment of gratuity was denied only on the ground that there was doubt whether the appellant was entitled to gratuity, cash equivalent to leave etc., in view of divergent opinion of the courts during the pendency of enquiry. The learned Single Judge having held that the appellant was entitled to payment of gratuity was not right in denying the interest on the delayed payment of gratuity having due regard to Section 7(3-A) of the Act. The learned Single Judge having held that the appellant was entitled to payment of gratuity was not right in denying the interest on the delayed payment of gratuity having due regard to Section 7(3-A) of the Act. It was not the case of the respondent that the delay in the payment of gratuity was due to the fault of the employee and that it had obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on that ground. As noticed above, there is a clear mandate in the provisions of Section 7 to the employer for payment of gratuity within time and to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. There is also provision to recover the amount of gratuity with compound interest in case amount of gratuity payable was not paid by the employer in terms of Section 8 of the Act. Since the employer did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of the proviso to Section 7(3-A), no discretion was left to deny the interest to the appellant on belated payment of gratuity. Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court, having found that the appellant was entitled to interest, declined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge as regards the claim of interest on delayed payment of gratuity only on the ground that the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge could not be said to be arbitrary. In the first place in the light of what is stated above, the learned Single Judge could not refuse the grant of interest exercising discretion as against the mandatory provisions contained in Section 7 of the Act. The Division Bench, in our opinion, committed an error in assuming that the learned Single Judge could exercise the discretion in the matter of awarding interest and that such a discretion exercised was not arbitrary." 12. Controversy involved deserves to be also viewed from a different angle. The petitioner on his retirement was entitled to the benefit of gratuity which is held to be no more bounty given by the employer but becomes the property of the retired employee on and from the date of retirement. The deprivation of such property is barred under the Constitution save by authority of law. Article 300A of the Constitution is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience: "300A. The deprivation of such property is barred under the Constitution save by authority of law. Article 300A of the Constitution is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience: "300A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.- No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." 13. It is nobody's case that there is any statutory law empowering the employer herein to withhold gratuity of the petitioner after his retirement. The impugned order of withholding of gratuity, Annexure P-l, has already been declared to be null and void in the eyes of law and therefore, it is evident that the petitioner was deprived of his gratuity (property) without any authority of law. This Court while taking this view finds support from the decision of Apex Court in the matter "State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in [ (2013) 12 SCC 210 "], paragraphs 16 and 17 of which are reproduced below: "16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognised as a right in "property". Article 300-A of the Constitution of India reads as under: "300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of /aw.-No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced. 17. It hardly needs to be emphasised that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as "law" within the meaning of the aforesaid Article 300-A. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticed above, so far as statutory Rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. As we noticed above, so far as statutory Rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had there been any such provision in these Rules, the position would have been different." 14. Consequently, present Writ Appeal deserves to be and is therefore allowed to the following extent: (1) Impugned order of the learned Single Judge to the extent it declines the grant of statutory interest payable u/S 7(3 A) of the 1972 Act is set aside. (2) The employer/respondents are directed to sanction, release and pay the amount of interest payable to the petitioner u/S 7(3A) of the 1972 Act for the period from 30.07.2002 [30 days after the date of compulsory retirement of the petitioner] till the actual payment is made at the rate admissible from time to time u/S 7(3A) of 1972 Act. (3) The petitioner/appellant is entitled to cost of this litigation which is quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to be paid by respondents by digital transfer to bank account of petitioner, within 30 days of petitioner furnishing necessary bank details.