JUDGMENT : Hemant M. Prachchhak, J. 1. By way of present petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : "a) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to admit the present Special Civil Application; (b) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by way of passing appropriate order, writ, mandamus or directions or writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18.06.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority in Appeal No.138/2020 as well as the impugned order dated 21.09.2020 passed by respondent No.3 in Gratuity Application No.56/2019; (c) Pending the admission, final hearing and disposal of the present Special Civil Application be pleased to stay the implementation, execution & operation of the impugned order dated 18.06.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority in Appeal No.138/2020 as well as the impugned order dated 21.09.2020 passed by respondent No.3 in Gratuity Application No.56/2019; (d) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as the nature of the case may be required and the Honourable Court may deem thought fit to pass such order." 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under : 2.1. The respondent No.1, who was born on 01.06.1960 was recruited as Additional Assistant Engineer by the Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as "Board" for short) on 03.09.1984 and was superannuated on 30.06.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation. That, his basic pay was of Rs.82,600 + D.A., House Rent Allowance, Medical Allowance and Vehicle Allowance, aggregating to Rs.91,796/-. That, the respondent No 1 was immediately released a benefit of leave encashment as he had settled down in Australia after his retirement on 30.06.2018 and therefore, amount of Rs.10 lakh towards gratuity was paid on 14.02.2019 after following due procedure. That at the relevant point of time, upper limit towards gratuity was of Rs. 10 lakh as per the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. That the members of the Board considered the proposal of enhancement of upper limit of gratuity to Rs. 20 lakhs in its meeting dated 10.07.2018 and also resolved to seek approval of the State Government. Thereafter, proposal was forwarded by the head office of Board on 28.09.2018 to Narmada Water Supply, Water Resources and Kalpsar Department of the Government of Gujarat. 20 lakhs in its meeting dated 10.07.2018 and also resolved to seek approval of the State Government. Thereafter, proposal was forwarded by the head office of Board on 28.09.2018 to Narmada Water Supply, Water Resources and Kalpsar Department of the Government of Gujarat. That after due deliberation and correspondence, the said proposal was approved on 17.09.2019 by the Government of Gujarat in Narmada Water Supply, Water Resources and Kalpsar Department and accordingly, upper limit of gratuity was enhanced to Rs.20 lakhs. That, the Board is having contributory provident fund scheme and gratuity is payable as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Hence, in all, approximately hundreds employees were required to be paid a differential amount towards gratuity after approval dated 17.09.2019 granted by the Government of Gujarat. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 was released a differential amount of Rs.7,33,490/- towards gratuity on 06.12.2019. 2.2. It is the case of the petitioner Board that, in spite of this factual background, respondent No. 1 preferred Gratuity Application No.56/2019 before the Controlling Authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act ie. respondent No.3. During the course of hearing, all the facts were brought to the notice of respondent No.3 by way of filing written submissions, but the respondent No.3 failed to appreciate the same and allowed the Gratuity Application No.56/2019 in spite of delay in filing thereof, by way of directing the petitioner Board to pay interest @ 10% p.a. for a period commencing from 7 months and 15 days for delayed payment of gratuity of Rs. 10 lakhs and for a period of 17 months and 6 days for delayed payment of differential amount of gratuity of Rs.7,33,647/-. The said order was challenged by way of filing Appeal No. 138/2020 before the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No.2 herein. However, ignoring the factual and legal aspects of the case, the Appellate Authority mechanically rejected the said appeal vide impugned order dated 18.06.2021. 2.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner has preferred this present petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the aforesaid prayers. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.H.S. Munshaw appearing on behalf of the petitioner Board and learned advocate Mr.P.H. Pathak appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1. 4. 2 and 3, the petitioner has preferred this present petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the aforesaid prayers. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.H.S. Munshaw appearing on behalf of the petitioner Board and learned advocate Mr.P.H. Pathak appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw has submitted that the impugned orders are illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to the facts and material on record as well as the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and therefore, required to be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that at the time of retirement of respondent No.1i.e. 30.06.2018, maximum amount of gratuity payable to a retired employee under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act was of Rs.10 Lakhs so far as the petitioner Board is concerned and therefore, the said amount was released on 14.02.2019 after completing the procedure with respondent No.1, who had settled down in Australia and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any inordinate delay at the end of the petitioner. He has submitted that the respondent No.1 was paid an amount of gratuity of Rs.10 Lakhs as per the then prevailing rules of the petitioner Board, however, the members of the Board resolved to enhance it to Rs.20 Lakhs on 10.07.2018 i.e. after retirement of the respondent No.1 on 30.06.2018 and therefore, the respondent No.1 became entitled to a differential amount of gratuity only after 17.09.2018. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw has submitted that pursuant to the change in policy, approximately thousands of retired employees were entitled to a differential amount and the respondent No.1 was one of them and therefore, after following due procedure, an amount of Rs.7,33,490/- was released in favour of the respondent No.1 on 06.12.2019, who had settled in Australia. He has therefore, submitted that there was no inordinate delay at any stage i.e. at the time of release of Rs.10 Lakhs on 14.02.2019 as well as release of differential amount on 06.12.2019 after approval of the Government of Gujarat dated 17.09.2019. He has therefore, submitted that there was no inordinate delay at any stage i.e. at the time of release of Rs.10 Lakhs on 14.02.2019 as well as release of differential amount on 06.12.2019 after approval of the Government of Gujarat dated 17.09.2019. He has further submitted that after adopting the Gazette notification and after passing the resolution, the petitioner has sent the proposal to the State Government for approval for adopting the amendment in the cap of Rs.20 Lakhs instead of Rs.10 Lakhs and in that exigencies, the time had lapsed and it was not an intentional delay on the part of the petitioner and therefore, the respondent No.1 is not entitled to get interest as ordered by the appellate authority. He has therefore, urged that the present petition be allowed and the impugned orders be quashed and set aside. 5. As against that, learned advocate Mr.Pathak has submitted that the respondent No.1 is entitled to get interest on the delayed payment from the day the notification is published in official Gazette dated 29.03.2018. He has referred and relied upon the notification dated 29.03.2018 issued by the Central Government, wherein, the effective date is 29.03.2018 and the petitioner has adopted the said amendment only in the month of July, 2018 and therefore, though the respondent No.1 superannuated from service w.e.f. 30.06.2018, the amount of gratuity was paid after 7 months and 6 days of his retirement i.e. on 06.12.2019 and therefore, in view of the statutory provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the respondent is entitled for interest. He has therefore, urged that the present petition be dismissed with cost. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. Considering the provisions contained in Section 7(3-A), the date on which the respondent No.1 retired, from that day only he is entitled to get the amount of gratuity and if there is any delay on the part of the employer, then the employee is also entitled to get simple interest @ 10% on the delayed payment from the date of his retirement till the actual payment is made. This view is taken by this Court in a number of matters. 6.1. This view is taken by this Court in a number of matters. 6.1. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court with regard to awarding interest while interpreting provisions of Section 7(3- A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 6.2. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Dhirendra Pal Singh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 49 Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "Head Note:B Service Law- Retirement/Superannuation-retiral Benefits- Gratuity and Pension-Interest-Withholding of 30% of gratuity and pensionary dues found to be invalid. 9. In State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, this Court has held that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on the retirement but are valuable rights in their hands, and any culpable delay in disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest. In said case the Court approved 6% per annum interest on the amount of pension decreed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. As to the rate of interest on amount of gratuity Section 7(3-A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, it is provided that if the amount of gratuity payable is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which 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. It further provides that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in 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. In the present case, there is no plea before us that the appellants had sought any permission in writing from the controlling authority. As to the delay on the part of employee, it has come on the record that he made representations, whereafter he filed a suit in respect of withheld amount of gratuity and pension. In the present case, there is no plea before us that the appellants had sought any permission in writing from the controlling authority. As to the delay on the part of employee, it has come on the record that he made representations, whereafter he filed a suit in respect of withheld amount of gratuity and pension. In Y.K. Singla v. Punjab National Bank and others, this Court, after discussing the issue relating to interest payable on the amount of gratuity not paid within time, directed that interest at the rate of 8% per annum shall be paid on the amount of gratuity. 10. In the light of law laid down by this Court, as above, and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the impugned order passed by the High Court in respect of interest directed to be paid on the amount of withheld gratuity and pension. We direct that the appellants shall pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the unpaid amount of pension from the date it had fallen due and interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the unpaid amount of gratuity from the date of retirement of the employee." 6.3. In the decision in the case of Ashvinkumar Ramniklal Jani vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2022 SC OnLine Guj 575, the Court has held as under:- "7. XXX 4. This Court has heard learned AGP Ms.Asmita Patel who has fairly submitted the Court may pass appropriate order considering the decision rendered in case of H.Gangahanume Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 40 . The Apex Court in the said authority has decided the interest on delayed payment of gratuity. It is also held that the same is mandatory and not discretionary. When it is 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, the respondent had been directed to pay interest @ 10% on the amount of gratuity to which the appellant is entitled from the date it became payable till the date of payment of the gratuity amount. 6. 6. The Apex Court in the above referred decision has held that the grant of gratuity well within time mandatory and not discretionary wherein the Apex Court has held that:- "9. It is clear from what is extracted above from the order of 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 for payment of gratuity was not right in denying the interest on the delayed payment of gratuity having due regard to Section 7(3A) 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(3A), 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 for 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 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. 10. 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. 10. In the light of the facts stated and for the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Consequently, it is set aside. The respondent is directed to pay interest @ 10% on the amount of gratuity to which the appellant is entitled from the date it became payable till the date of payment of the gratuity amount. The appeal is allowed accordingly with cost quantified at Rs. 10,000/-." 6.4. In the decision of full bench of High Court of Judicature at Patna, in the case of Champaran Sugar Company Ltd. Vs. Joint Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority and others in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1090 of 1985, dated 11 November 1986, the Hon'ble Full Bench has observed as under:- "Head Note:-2 Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Ss. 4, 7 and 8- Payment of interest on delayed payments of gratuity - Right to interest on delayed payments of gratuity is statutory, the same can be granted in the absence of an express claim therefore in the application of the employee before the Controller: 19. To sum up on this aspect, answer to the second question is rendered in the affirmative and it is held that the right to interest on delayed payment of gratuity is statutory and the same can be granted in the absence of an express claim therefore in the application of the employee before the Controller." 6.5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the right to interest on delayed payment of gratuity is statutory and the same can be granted in favour of the employee concerned at the time of his retirement. Further in case of H.Gangahanume Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 40 , the Apex Court has decided the interest on delayed payment of gratuity and the same is mandatory and not discretionary. 6.6. Further, the pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on the retirement but are valuable rights in their hands, and any culpable delay in disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest. 6.7. 6.6. Further, the pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on the retirement but are valuable rights in their hands, and any culpable delay in disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest. 6.7. In view of the aforesaid facts and in light of the provisions of law and considering the settled legal principle, I am of the opinion that present petition is required to be dismissed and the impugned order passed by the both the authorities deserve to be confirmed, as it is provided under Section 7(3- A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act that on the date of retirement, the amount of gratuity is required to be paid to the employee and in case of failing, such employee would be entitled for the interest over the late payment made in favour of the concerned employees at the rate of 10% simple interest. 7. In the result, the present petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed. The amount lying before the Controlling Authority is ordered to be remitted in favour of the respondent No.1, after verifying the bank details and after following due process of law through RTGS/NEFT or any other appropriate mode within period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order of this Court. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.