ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 31.5.2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.4/Appellate Authority and for modifying the order dated 29.11.2013 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No.5/Controlling Authority-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that initially the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-department on 16.4.1976 and retired from the post of Senior Assistant on 30.10.2010 after serving for about 35 years. However, when his gratuity amount was not released, he made several requests and representations to the respondent authorities and when no action was taken thereon, ultimately he made an application to respondent No.5 for grant of gratuity with interest which was registered as Gratuity Case No.08/PGA/2013 and the same was allowed by order dated 29.11.2013 (Annexure P/2) with a direction to the respondent authorities to release the gratuity amount within a period of 30 days, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 10% p.a. However, no interest was allowed on the delayed payment of gratuity. Hence, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before respondent No.4 for grant of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. The Housing Board also preferred an appeal against the said order before respondent No.4. Both the appeals were dismissed by respondent No.4 by order dated 31.5.2014 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed on the ground that he approached the Court for grant of gratuity with interest after 28 months of his retirement, without appreciating the fact that from the date of his retirement, the petitioner has been making several requests to the respondent authorities in this regard and when no action was taken thereon, ultimately he approached the Court for the same. Hence this petition for the following reliefs: i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 31/5/2014 (Annexure P/1) passed in Appeal No.57/PGA/L.C./2014 (Shri Ram Narayan Agrawal V. Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Housing Board & Another) by the respondent No.4/Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 and Deputy Labour Commissioner. ii. Hence this petition for the following reliefs: i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 31/5/2014 (Annexure P/1) passed in Appeal No.57/PGA/L.C./2014 (Shri Ram Narayan Agrawal V. Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Housing Board & Another) by the respondent No.4/Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 and Deputy Labour Commissioner. ii. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to modify the order dated 29/11/2013 passed in gratuity case No.08/PGA/2013 (Shri Ram Narayan Agrawal V. Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Housing Board & Another) by the respondent No.5/Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur and grant interest also @ 18% per annum for the delayed payment of gratuity from the date of retirement of the petitioner till the date of release of payment of gratuity i.e. from 30/10/2010 to 20/06/2014. iii. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner including the cost of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. While passing the impugned order dated 31.5.2014 respondent No.4 failed to appreciate the fact that from the date of his retirement, the petitioner had been making several requests and representations for release of gratuity and when no action was taken on the same, then only he approached the Court for redressal of his grievance. He submits that payment of gratuity is not a bounty but it is the hard earned money of the employee/petitioner. As per Section 7(2)(3) & 3(A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the employee is entitled to gratuity within 30 days, failing which the employee is entitled for interest and in spite of there being specific provision, the amount of gratuity has not been released within 30 days and the interest has also not been paid to the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the matters of Karnail Singh Vs. General Manager reported in (2017) 2 CLR 359; order dated 16.12.2015 of this Court in WPL No.115 of 2014 in the matter of Vandana Vidhut Ltd. Vs. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the matters of Karnail Singh Vs. General Manager reported in (2017) 2 CLR 359; order dated 16.12.2015 of this Court in WPL No.115 of 2014 in the matter of Vandana Vidhut Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority and another; and order dated 8.5.2017 of this Court in WPL No.178 of 2016 in the matters of Prasen Singh Kshatriya Vs. Appellate Authority and others. 4. Even after repeated call, no one appears for respondents No. 1 to 3 despite service of notice and Vakalatnama being filed for them. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court vide order dated 16.12.2015 passed in WPL No.115/2014 in the matter of Vandana Vidhut Ltd. (supra), held in para 18 of the order as under: “18. Keeping in view the statutory provisions contained in sub-section (3A) of Section 7 of the Act of 1972 and applying the law laid-down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of H. Gangahanume Gowda (supra), I do not have any slightest hesitation in my mind to hold that failure of the petitioner to make payment of amount of gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable to the employee, sub-section (3A) of Section 7 of the Act of 1972 is squarely attracted and payment of interest being statutory and mandatory in nature and thereby the petitioner is liable to make payment of interest on the said amount which the Appellate Authority has rightly been awarded to respondent No.2.” 7. Further, this Court in WPL No.178 of 2016 in the matter of Prasen Singh Kshatriya (supra) in paras 13, 14 & 16 of the order dated 8.05.2017 observed as under: “13. Further, this Court in WPL No.178 of 2016 in the matter of Prasen Singh Kshatriya (supra) in paras 13, 14 & 16 of the order dated 8.05.2017 observed as under: “13. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the proviso to sub-section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Act of 1972 in the matter of Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited and another v. N. Asokan, (2009) 16 SCC 758 and it has been held that no permission having been taken by employer from controlling authority for delayed payment of gratuity and provision contained in Section 7 (3-A) being mandatory in nature, sub-section (3-A) of Section 7 is squarely attracted and employer is liable to make payment of interest on delayed amount of gratuity as per the rate specified in Section 7 (3-A), and succinctly observed as under: - “4. ... On a plain reading of this provision, as noted hereinabove, 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 payments, 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 (3-A) and its term would be squarely applicable in the facts of this case. 5....However, considering the aforesaid mandatory provision of Section 7(3-A) of the Act and considering the fact that more than eight years have elapsed since the retirement of the respondent, we are of the view that the High Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge which also directed payment of interest to the respondent.” 14. Recently, in the matter of Y.K. Singla v. Punjab National Bank and others, (2013) 3 SCC 472 , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court revisited the scope and extent of interest on payment of gratuity amount and condensely held as under: - “18. Sub-section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act is the most relevant provision for the determination of the present controversy. A perusal of the sub-section (3-A) 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) of Section 7, the employee in question would be entitled to “... simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term loans, as the Government may, by notification specify”. There is, however, one exception to the payment of interest envisaged under sub- section (3) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act. The aforesaid exception is provided for in the proviso under sub-section (3-A) of Section 7. 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 (3-A) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act incorporates two ingredients. Where the two ingredients contemplated in the proviso under sub-section (3-A) are fulfilled, the employee concerned can be denied interest despite delayed payment of gratuity. Having carefully examined the proviso under sub- section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act, we are of the view that: (i) The first ingredient is that payment of gratuity to the employee was delayed because of some fault of the employee himself. (ii) The second ingredient is that the controlling authority should have approved such withholding of gratuity (of the employee concerned) 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. 23. Based on the conclusions drawn hereinabove, we shall endeavour to determine the present controversy. None of the other sub-sections of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act would have the effect of negating the conclusion drawn hereinabove. 23. Based on the conclusions drawn hereinabove, we shall endeavour to determine the present controversy. First and foremost, we have concluded on the basis of Section 4 of the Gratuity Act that an employee has the right to make a choice of being governed by some alternative provision/instrument other than the Gratuity Act, for drawing the benefit of gratuity. If an employee makes such a choice, he is provided with a statutory protection, namely, that the employee concerned would be entitled to receive better terms of gratuity under the said provision/instrument, in comparison to his entitlement under the Gratuity Act. This protection has been provided through Section 4(5) of the Gratuity Act. 25. We, therefore, have no hesitation in concluding that even though the provisions of the 1995 Regulations are silent on the issue of payment of interest, the least that the appellant would be entitled to are terms equal to the benefits envisaged under the Gratuity Act. Under the Gratuity Act, the appellant would be entitled to interest on account of delayed payment of gratuity (as has already been concluded above). We therefore hold that the appellant herein is entitled to interest on account of delayed payment, in consonance with sub-section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act.” 16. Following the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid cases, I am unhesitatingly as well as unreservedly of the considered opinion that unless the delay in payment of gratuity is attributable to the fault of the employee and necessary permission in terms of proviso to sub- section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Act of 1972 is obtained by the employer in writing from the controlling authority for delayed payment, the payment of interest in terms of Section 7 (3-A) of the Act of 1972 is imperative and the employer is statutorily liable to make payment of interest and he cannot escape the liability to make payment of interest on the amount of gratuity.” 8. In the present case also, the petitioner retired on 30.10.2010 and payment of gratuity was made by the respondents on 20.6.2014 and no permission in writing was obtained by the employer from the controlling authority for delayed payment. In the present case also, the petitioner retired on 30.10.2010 and payment of gratuity was made by the respondents on 20.6.2014 and no permission in writing was obtained by the employer from the controlling authority for delayed payment. Thus, applying the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount of gratuity from the date of retirement i.e. 30.10.2010 till the date of actual payment. The respondent authorities are directed to make the said payment within a period of four months from today, failing which such amount would carry interest @ 10% per annum. 9. In the result, the order passed by the appellate authority is modified to the extend indicated hereinabove. The writ petition is allowed in part.