JUDGMENT : Alexander Thomas, J. The appellant herein has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil), W.P.(C) No.24921 of 2020, with the following prayers: “(a) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P6 and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the same; (b) Declare that withholding the gratuity and other retirement benefits due to the petitioner is illegal and without any authority of law; (c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to pay the gratuity and leave encashment withheld with 12% interest calculated from the date from which it fell due till the payment; (d) Award costs of and incidental to this Writ Petition (Civil); (e) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned judgment on 13.01.2021 finally disposing of the said Writ Petition by allowing the main pleas of the writ petitioner by holding that withholding of the gratuity amount due to the petitioner even after his retirement, is illegal and ultra vires as there are no rules for the employer Corporation, which permit continuance of disciplinary proceedings on fixation of liability after retirement and that therefore, the employer Corporation is legally obliged to immediately disburse the gratuity amount due to the petitioner, who has retired as early as on 30.11.2013, etc. However, the learned Single Judge has left open the issue of interest. It is common ground that the employer Corporation has complied with the directions and orders of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment by sanctioning and releasing the full amount of gratuity due to the petitioner as per Annexure-A proceedings dated 19.07.2021. The appellant being aggrieved by the non grant of interest, has filed the instant intra-court appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act contending that the statutory liability to pay the interest is in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Central Act No.39 of 1972). It is in these circumstances that the above Writ Appeal has come up for consideration before us. 3. It is in these circumstances that the above Writ Appeal has come up for consideration before us. 3. Heard Smt.T.N.Sreekala, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the W.A./petitioner in the W.P.(C) and Sri.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Beverages Corporation appearing for all the respondents in the W.A./respondents in the W.P.(C). 4. The appellant/writ petitioner was in the service of the respondent Kerala State Beverages Corporation and while holding the post of Assistant Manager (Accountant in charge), he had retired from service on 30.11.2013. Alleging that certain audit objections have been raised stating that the appellant has allegedly misappropriated certain amounts, the retirement benefits due to the writ petitioner was not released. It was also pointed out by the respondent employer Corporation that criminal proceedings is also pending as against the appellant in connection with the above said allegations of financial irregularities. The appellant had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) W.P.(C) No.28567 of 2014 before this Court, seeking for directions for payment of the withheld amount of DCRG, provident fund, etc. The learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No.28567 of 2014 as per Ext.P5 judgment on 29.01.2015 noting that liability amounts have been alleged and criminal proceedings are also pending and that going by the provisions contained in Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the gratuity amounts could be withheld and recovered, if the contingencies mentioned either in Clause (a) or Clause (b) thereof are satisfied and that the Central enactment governing the field, namely, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 permits withholding of gratuity on the grounds stated in Section 4(6) thereof. This Court held that, it is for the respondent employer to establish the loss and then proceed with their proposed steps in the matter of determination of the liability, if any, as against the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge as per para No.8 of Ext.P5 judgment has directed that the Managing Director of the respondent employer Corporation shall take a decision on the claim of the petitioner after hearing the petitioner and if no liability can be fastened on the petitioner based on the entire records, necessarily entire amount shall be released to the petitioner without any delay and further directions are also given to ensure that the provident fund amounts are disbursed without any further delay. Thereafter, the respondent employer Corporation issued Ext.P6 order dated 20.04.2015 with a finding that criminal proceedings is already pending against the writ petitioner and that finalization of the said disciplinary proceedings would depend upon the completion of the criminal court proceedings and the departmental enquiry has been ordered in the matter, and that hence, the respondent-Corporation is not in a position to release the gratuity amount, etc. The present writ petition has been filed by the appellant for challenging proceedings at Ext.P6 and for directions for payment of full gratuity amount along with interest thereon, etc. 5. The competent authority of the State Government in the Taxes Department has issued Ext.P4 G.O.(MS) No.4/86/TD dated 07.01.1986, approving the service rules for regulating the service conditions of the employees of the respondent Kerala State Beverages Corporation, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 26(10) of the Articles of Association of the said company which is fully owned by the Government of Kerala, etc. The only rules contained in Ext.P4 Rules for regulating aspects in the matter of payment of gratuity and other aspects relating to fixation of liability, etc. are those contained in Rules 76 to 78 and Rule 8 thereof. Rules 76 to 78 provide as follows: “Rule 76. Gratuity Subject to the other provisions of the payment of Gratuity Act and Rules made there under, at the time of termination/cessation of the services of an employee under the Corporation otherwise than as a disciplinary measure, gratuity shall be payable irrespective of the rates of wages/salary at the rate of one month's wages/salary for each completed year of service, subject to the condition that the maximum amount should not exceed Rs.3.5 lakhs (The above was inserted as per G.O.(Rt) No.627/2002/TD, dated 07.11.2002 -Annexure-L). Rule 77. Gratuity in cases of death or disablement In the case of death or disablement, gratuity will be payable at the following rates to the employees' family/employee In the case of death/disablement during -Two months salary/ 1st year service wages After one year but before completion of -Four months salary three years After completion of three years of service-Six months salary but before completion of five years After completion of five years of service-As in the case of otherwise, but subject to a minimum of 8 months salary Rule 78. Recovery of liabilities of the employees from Gratuity Such part of the liabilities if any of an employee as determined by the Corporation, which could not be recovered from pay due to him or otherwise will be recovered from the gratuity payable under these rules.” 6. A reading of Rule 76 would make it clear that the matters relating to regulation of gratuity by the respondent Corporation will be subject to the provisions contained in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 framed by the Parliament, etc. Rule 78 thereof stipulates that such part of the liabilities, if any, of an employee as determined by the Corporation, which could not be recovered from pay due to him or otherwise, will be recovered from the gratuity payable under those Rules. A Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P8 judgment dated 09.10.2020 in Writ Appeal W.A.No.1241 of 2020 [arising out of Ext.P7 judgment dated 22.05.2020 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.30603 of 2019], has held that though liberty is preserved for the respondent employer Corporation to recover liabilities from the gratuity of the employee concerned in terms of Rule 78 of the Service Rules, such liability fixation will have to be done as early as possible and that the respondent employer Corporation cannot indefinitely postpone the issue of finalization of liabilities in accordance with law. 7. Rule 8 of the abovesaid Rules provides as follows: “Rule 8. Matters relating to services not covered by the Rules: 1. in respect of matters not covered in these Rules, similar rules in Government services shall be followed. 2. the board of directors shall be competent to issue administrative instructions for the smooth functioning of the Corporation.” Hence, though no explicit provisions are made in Ext.P4 Rules for regulating other aspects relating to fixation of liability and for grant of gratuity etc., the provisions contained in the Kerala State Service Rules which are applicable to Government servants would mutatis mutandis apply to the extent it is relevant and called for and to the extent it is not dealt with by any other provisions in Ext.P4 like Rule 78. Therefore, the provisions contained in Rule 3 of Part III KSR would have been otherwise applicable. We are not extracting the full text of the operative portion of Rule 3, since that is not necessary. Therefore, the provisions contained in Rule 3 of Part III KSR would have been otherwise applicable. We are not extracting the full text of the operative portion of Rule 3, since that is not necessary. The operative portion of Rule 3 of Part III KSR and Notes 1, 2 and 3 appended thereto provide as follows: “Rule 3 “The Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon reemployment after retirement: “ xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Note 1.-As soon as proceedings of the nature referred to in this rule are instituted the authority which institutes such proceedings should without delay intimate the fact to the Audit Officer. The amount of pension withheld under this rule should not ordinarily exceed one-third of the pension originally sanctioned. In fixing the amount of pension to be so withheld, regard should be had to any case would be adequate for his maintenance. Note 2.-The word 'pension' used in this rule does not include death-cum-retirement gratuity. Liabilities fixed against an employee [or pensioner] can be recovered from the death-cum-retirement gratuity payable to him without the departmental/judicial proceedings referred to in this rule, but after giving the employee [or pensioner] concerned a reasonable opportunity to explain. Note 3.-The liabilities of an employee should be quantified either before or after retirement and intimated to him before retirement if possible or after retirement within a period of three years on becoming pensioner. The liabilities of a pensioner should be quantified and intimated to him.” Note 2 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR specifically mandates that the word “pension” used in the operative portion of Rule 3 of Part III KSR does not include death-cum-retirement gratuity. Hence, it is common ground that the respondent employer Corporation does not provide pension and only gratuity, provident fund, etc. alone are paid as retiremental benefits. Hence, it is common ground that the respondent employer Corporation does not provide pension and only gratuity, provident fund, etc. alone are paid as retiremental benefits. Therefore, even if Rule 3 proceedings could have been otherwise invoked, a final adverse order under Rule 3 could have been imposed only for withholding of pension and not for DCRG, by virtue of the departmental/disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings as envisaged in the operative portion of Rule 3 of Part III KSR. So the provisions in Rule 3, Part III KSR cannot be of any relevance as far as DCRG payment to the employees of the Corporation concerned. However, 2nd part of Note 2 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR specifically mandates that the liabilities fixed against an employee or pensioner can be recovered from the DCRG payable to him without the departmental/judicial proceedings referred to in this Rule, but after giving the employee or pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity to explain. Hence, liabilities which could have been otherwise finalised and determined without recourse to a judicial proceedings or departmental proceedings as envisaged in the operative portion of Rule 3 of Part III KSR would be the subject matter of fixation and determination by the process of hearing the pensioner concerned and affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard and then finalize and quantify the exact liability amount. However, Note 3 to Rule 3 Part III KSR further mandates that such liabilities as referred to in Note 2 should have been fixed and finalized within the outer time limit of 3 years from the date of retirement of the pensioner and such liability should have been quantified and intimated to him within the said period. In the instant case, though liberty was accorded to the respondent Corporation by this Court as per Ext.P5 judgment, for reasons not known to us, the respondent Corporation has taken the stand in Ext.P6 that criminal proceedings are pending and therefore, they can fix the liability only thereafter and hence no DCRG could be paid then. Thus, it is common ground that no liability fixation process has ever been done by the respondent employee Corporation even now, even though liberty was accorded to them as per Ext.P5 judgment. Thus, it is common ground that no liability fixation process has ever been done by the respondent employee Corporation even now, even though liberty was accorded to them as per Ext.P5 judgment. Hence, going by the mandate contained in Rule 8 of Ext.P4 Rules read with Note 2 and Note 3 to Rule 3 Part III KSR, the liabilities which should have been fixed without recourse to Judicial or departmental proceedings as above should have been fixed up and finalized and that too in full compliance with the principles of natural justice and fairness within the outer time limit of 3 years from the date of retirement of the pensioner. In the instant case, the appellant has retired from service as early as on 30.11.2013 and the outer time limit of 3 years from the date of retirement in terms of Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR has expired as early as on 30.11.2016, whereas Ext.P5 judgment was rendered by this Court on 29.01.2015 and still though they had time in that regard the respondent Corporation, for reasons only known to them, has chosen to take the stand in Ext.P6 that such liability fixation process is not then called for and they will have to await for the finalization of the impugned criminal proceedings. Hence, we have no doubt in our mind that the withholding of the gratuity from the appellant, is illegal and ultra vires in as much as no such liability should have been finalized in accordance with the Rules concerned after 30.11.2016. 8. Section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 deals with the contingencies of payment of gratuity to an employee. Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides as follows: “Section 4. 8. Section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 deals with the contingencies of payment of gratuity to an employee. Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides as follows: “Section 4. Payment of gratuity xxxx xxxxx xxxx (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),_ (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused; (b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited- (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.” The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 permits withholding of gratuity only on fulfillment of any of the contingencies envisaged in Clauses (a) & (b) of Sub-Section 6. Though there is a case set up that criminal proceedings has been initiated against the appellant after his retirement from service, the respondent employer Corporation has no case that the said case has ended up in conviction and that the same is for an offence involving moral turpitude, etc., which has been committed in the course of his employment etc., as envisaged in Clause(b)(ii) of Section 4(6). So also, no case has been set up by the respondent Corporation that any of the other contingencies envisaged in Section 4(6), more particularly, Clause (a) and Clause (b)(i) thereof are satisfied in the instant case. Further, for the abovesaid reasons, the operative portion of Rule 3 of Part III KSR has no application or relevance in the instant case since the respondent employer Corporation does not pay the pension to its employees. So also, there are no Rules applicable in the employer Corporation for continuing post retirement disciplinary proceedings for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any gratuity amount can be recovered, as permitted by Clause (a) and Clause (b)(i) of Section 4(6). So also, there are no Rules applicable in the employer Corporation for continuing post retirement disciplinary proceedings for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any gratuity amount can be recovered, as permitted by Clause (a) and Clause (b)(i) of Section 4(6). Now the respondents have complied with the direction of the learned Single Judge as per the present impugned judgment rendered on 13.01.2021 in the instant W.P.(C) No.24921 of 2020 by releasing the full DCRG amount due to the petitioner as per Annexure-A proceedings dated 19.07.2021. 9. All what remains is the question of interest claimed by the appellant in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act stipulates as follows: “7. Determination of the amount of gratuity xxxx xxxx xxxx (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in subsection (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.” 10. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Viswanathan v. F.A.C.T. Ltd. [ 2021 (2) KLT 899 (DB)] has dealt with the applicability of Section 4(6) read with Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and has also considered the impact of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindranath Choubey [ AIR 2020 SC 2978 ] and has held that even in a case where the Service Rules of the employer permit post retirement disciplinary proceedings, as envisaged in Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, if ultimately the employee is exonerated of the charges, then the right to get the statutory interest cannot be defeated and that since interest is statutorily mandated by the Union legislature, the employer would be legally bound to pay interest to the pensioner concerned, in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, from the date on which gratuity becomes payable and that too at a simple interest rate not exceeding the rate notified by the Union Government. In that case, it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that the last notification issued by the Union Government in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Act was to grant interest at the rate of 10% per annum, etc. This Court taking into account the overall aspects of the case directed in Viswanathan's case supra [ 2021 (2) KLT 899 ] that interest shall be paid to the said appellant therein at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of retirement of the said party upto the date on which the gratuity amount has been paid, etc. In the instant case, the respondent Corporation has no case that the proviso to Sub-section (3A) of Section 7 is applicable in as much as the respondent Corporation has no case that the gratuity payment has been delayed on account of the fault of the employee and that the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority constituted as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for the delayed payment on that ground. Hence, the proviso to Sub-section (3A) of Section 7 is also not applicable. Hence, the proviso to Sub-section (3A) of Section 7 is also not applicable. So the employee will get the statutory right in terms of the operative portion of Sub Section (3A) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act to secure interest not exceeding the rate notified by the Union Government thereunder from the day on which gratuity became payable upto the date of the actual payment. Section 7 (3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has mandated that the employer shall arrange to pay gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom gratuity is payable. Section 4(1) of the said Act mandates that gratuity shall be payable to an employee on termination of his employment after he rendered continuous service for not less than 5 years, either, (a) on his superannuation or (b) on his retirement or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease, etc. In the instant case the appellant has retired from service on 30.11.2013. 30 days therefrom has expired on 31.12.2013. The gratuity amount in fact has been paid only as per Annexure-A1 as late as on 19.07.2021. Hence, the appellant is entitled for interest for the period from 01.01.2014 (30 days after the date of retirement of the appellant) upto 19.07.2021 (date on which the gratuity amount has been released to the appellant as per Annexure-A). Though the statutory notification issued by the Union Government fixes interest at the rate of 10% per annum in terms of Section 7(3A), the said interest rate so fixed is the upper limit and it is mandated therein that the interest payable shall not exceed the said notified limits. Hence, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to reduce the rate of interest as 8% per annum for the above said period. 11. Hence, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to reduce the rate of interest as 8% per annum for the above said period. 11. Smt.T.N.Sreekala, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would point out that apart from the full amount of DCRG, leave surrender encashment amount due to the appellant since his retirement was also withheld and the said amount was also paid belatedly to the appellant as per Annexure-A proceedings dated 19.07.2021 and that this Court may direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the said leave encashment amount of Rs.1,53,035/-, for the abovesaid period in question, and that this Court has ordered such interest on the withheld leave encashment amount in F.A.C.T.’s case supra [ 2021 (2) KLT 899 ]. We see that in F.A.C.T.’s case supra, the appellant therein was fully exonerated of the allegations in the post retiral disciplinary proceedings taken therein, whereas in the instant case the impugned criminal proceedings are said to be pending. There is no statutory provision like in Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which confers any right on the employee/retired employee to secure interest on the delayed payment of the leave encashment facility. Since there is no statutory right and in view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the appellant, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion to order interest on the said leave encashment amount and the said plea will stand refused. 12. Sri.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has strongly urged that the respondents cannot be blamed for the delay, since this Court as per Ext.P5 judgment rendered as early as on 29.01.2015 had permitted the withholding of the gratuity for the time being subject to the compliance of the directions therein and further that even otherwise, the outer time limit for fixation of liability was upto 30.11.2016, etc. 13. We are not impressed with this argument of the respondents. True that, the learned Single Judge had given liberty to the respondent employer Corporation to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and to withhold the gratuity for the time being till then. However, the respondent Corporation chose not to initiate any proceedings for fixation/finalization after hearing the appellant on the ground that the same can be done only after the finalisation of the criminal proceedings. However, the respondent Corporation chose not to initiate any proceedings for fixation/finalization after hearing the appellant on the ground that the same can be done only after the finalisation of the criminal proceedings. Further, as held by the Apex Court in Mahanadi Coalfields's case supra [ AIR 2020 SC 2978 ], even in a case where the Conduct and Disciplinary Rules (CDA Rules) of the employer permit post retirement disciplinary proceedings as envisaged in Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, and ultimately the employee is exonerated of the allegations, then going by the mandate engrafted by the Parliament in Section 7 (3A) of the Act, the retired employee will be entitled for statutory interest, in terms of that provision. In the instant case, there are no provisions for the employer Corporation for continuing post retirement disciplinary action for the purpose of recovery of DCRG, as envisaged in Section 4(6), in view of the aspects stated hereinabove. Once full amount of gratuity becomes payable to the employee due to the consequences of law, then the right to get statutory interest in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, cannot be taken away. That apart, it is trite that gratuity is also the proprietory right of the retired employee concerned and going by the mandate contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India, no one shall be deprived of the right of property save by the authority of law. In the instant case, the respondent employer Corporation has not chosen to proceed further with the finalization of the liability in accordance with law and therefore, the consequence would be that the full amount of DCRG will be payable and that being so, the statutory right in terms of Section 7(3A) cannot be taken away or deprived. Accordingly, it is ordered that the competent authority among the respondents should ensure that interest shall be paid to the appellant on the full amount of DCRG at the rate of 8% per annum for the period from 01.01.2014 upto 19.07.2021 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. These crucial aspects of the matter have not been duly taken note of in the impugned judgment. These crucial aspects of the matter have not been duly taken note of in the impugned judgment. Hence, it is ordered that the impugned directions and orders of the learned Single Judge as per the impugned judgment rendered on 13.01.2021 in W.P.(C) No.24921 of 2020 will stand modified to the limited extent as above. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Appeal, will stand finally disposed of.