ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondent in withholding the petitioner’s retirement benefits i.e. Gratuity, Encashment of Leave, two Annual Increments, Stagnated Increment and Reimbursement of Travel Allowance bills for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- without any authority of law, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in service of the respondent-Federation in the year 1975 as Assistant District Manager and he was promoted from time to time. Subsequently, he has retired from service on 30.06.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation, while he was working as Manager (Planning) at the Head Office. It is the further case of the petitioner that, while he was working as District Manager of State Cooperative Marketing Federation (in short “MARKFED”) at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda, the Cooperative Special Registrar audited MARKFED and submitted a Special Report, dated 04.02.1984, alleging that, on three counts, an amount of Rs. 3,43,869-42 was misappropriated by the petitioner. Based on the report of the Cooperative Special Registrar, the Joint Registrar conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted his report holding that the allegations in the audit were true. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 16(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred as, ‘the APCS Act’) calling for his explanation as to why the alleged amount should not be recovered from his account and an enquiry was conducted under Section 60(1) of the APCS Act. After a detailed consideration of the matter, the Special Cadre Deputy Registrar/District Cooperative Officer, Nalgonda, has passed an order vide proceedings No. 1982/84-E, dated 18.01.1990, holding that the allegation against the petitioner was not proved and the same has become final. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies has issued a show cause notice, dated 17.10.2000, for the very same allegations, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 31.10.2000, bringing to the notice of the officials that an order was already passed on 18.01.1990, and requested the Joint Registrar to drop further action. However, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Joint Registrar has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3,43,869-42 vide order, dated 26.12.2000. However, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Joint Registrar has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3,43,869-42 vide order, dated 26.12.2000. Aggrieved by the said surcharge order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) under Section 76 (6) of the APCS Act on 05.02.2001 and the same was allowed vide judgment, dated 16.05.2001, setting aside the order, dated 26.12.2000. Challenging the said order, the Joint Registrar filed W.P. No. 19821 of 2001 before this Court, which was dismissed on 20.09.2012. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has retired from service on 30.06.2002, and the respondent have withheld the retirement benefits of the petitioner i.e. Gratuity, Leave Encashment, two Annual Increments and Stagnated Increments for his continuous service of 25 years and credit balances of tour and allowance, without any authority or power. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Heard Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri G. Ashok Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Cooperative Marketing Federation, appearing for the respondent. 5. It has been contended that by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has retired from service on 30.06.2002 and as on the date of his retirement, neither any disciplinary proceedings were pending nor any charge sheet was issued to him. Despite the same, the respondent have withheld the retirement benefits of the petitioner without any authority of law. It is further contended that the order of Special Cadre DR/DCO, Nalgonda District, dated 18.01.1990, has become final, wherein the competent authority has held that the allegation against the petitioner is not proved and the petitioner has not cause any loss, much less of Rs. 3,43,869-42. Therefore, the action of the respondent in withholding the retirement benefits of the petitioner is contrary to law and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that for the very same cause of action, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies issued a show cause notice, dated 17.10.2000, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 31.10.2000, bringing it to the notice of the officials that already orders were passed on 18.01.1990, and requested to drop any further proceedings. It is further contended that for the very same cause of action, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies issued a show cause notice, dated 17.10.2000, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 31.10.2000, bringing it to the notice of the officials that already orders were passed on 18.01.1990, and requested to drop any further proceedings. Without considering the earlier order, dated 18.01.1990, wherein the petitioner was exonerated from the charges, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies has issued a surcharge order, dated 26.12.2000. Against which, the petitioner has filed an appeal before Tribunal under Section 76 (6) of the APCS Act on 05.02.2001, and a stay was granted by the Tribunal. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed and the order of the Joint Registrar, dated 26.12.2001, was set aside. Therefore, the action of the respondent in withholding the retirement benefits is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, learned counsel requested to allow the present writ petition. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on an unreported Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited vs. N. Asokan, (2009) INSC 1286. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that during the internal audit of Nizamabad Fertilizers Business, it was found that there was a difference of dues of Rs. 43,835-96 and the petitioner was found responsible for the said difference. For which, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and two annual grade increments of the petitioner were withheld as a punishment. Further, the liability was fixed for Rs. 17,960/- under Charge No. IV and Rs. 10,720/- under Charge No. VI and the same were deducted from the retirement benefits of the petitioner. It is further contended that the respondent-Federation could not pay the retirement benefits to the petitioner only due to the pendency of the writ petition filed by the respondent-Federation i.e. W.P. No. 19821 of 2001, which was pending before this Court till September, 2012. Thereafter, the retirement benefits to a tune of Rs. 2,10,000/- were paid to the petitioner vide Cheque No. 825757, dated 12.04.2013, of the State Bank of India. It is further contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any interest on the payment of arrears as there is no fault on the part of the respondent and the delay occurred only due to pendency of the writ petition before this Court. It is further contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any interest on the payment of arrears as there is no fault on the part of the respondent and the delay occurred only due to pendency of the writ petition before this Court. Hence, learned Standing Counsel prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 7. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the respective parties. 8. This Court vide interim order, dated 29.04.2013, directed the respondent to pay the gratuity to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, failing which, they have to pay interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of due till the date of payment. 9. A perusal of the record discloses that the retirement benefits of the petitioner to a tune of Rs. 2,10,000/- were paid to the petitioner vide Cheque No. 825757, dated 12.04.2013, of the State Bank of India and the same is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Since recovery of Rs. 28,680/- (Rs. 17,960/- + Rs. 10,720/-) along with 18% interest, is not the subject matter of this writ petition, this Court is not inclined to deal with that issue. Hence, the issue is now confined to payment of interest on gratuity, from the date of retirement till the date of payment. As per Section 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (for short ‘the Act’) the respondent are bound to pay the Gratuity amount within a period of 30 days from the date it becomes payable to the person who is eligible for the same. Section 7(3A) of the Act contemplates that: “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 delay payment on this ground.” 10. In the present case, the respondent have withheld the gratuity without any fault of the petitioner even though he has retired from service on 30.06.2002 and the only ground taken by the respondent in their counter affidavit for delay in the payment of gratuity, is the pendency of W.P. No. 19821 of 2001 filed by the respondent-Federation, which has nothing to do with the payment of the same as there were no interim orders in favour of the respondent. 11. Coming to the judgment relied on by the petitioner in N. Asokan Case (referred supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has made the following observation: “4. Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short “the Act”) deals with determination of the payment of gratuity. Since the gratuity amount has already been paid, Section 7 (3A), which deals with payment of interest for delayed payment of gratuity, would be necessary only to be dealt with in this appeal and to consider whether interest on delayed payment of gratuity can be directed to be paid by the appellant to the respondent in compliance with Section 7 (3A) of the Act. 5. For this reason, we like to reproduce Section 7(3A) of the Act, which runs as under: “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 delay payment on this ground.” 6. 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 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.” 12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in compliance of the provision of Section 7(3A) of the Act, the petitioner is entitled for payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the respondent are directed to pay the interest, in terms of Section 7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, on the delayed payment of gratuity, to the petitioner, from the date of retirement till the date of payment, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.