JUDGMENT : M. K. Thakker, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent. 2. This petition is filed under article 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer: “Your Lordships be pleased to quash and set-aside the order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the Learned Controlling Authority, Rajkot in Gratuity Application (Case) No.27 of 2022 passed by the Learned Appellate Authority, Rajkot in Gratuity Appeal No.155 of 2023, in the interest of justice;” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 was working as a Deputy Executive Engineer with the Board from 30.03.1984, on completion of 36 years and 6 months service, respondent No.1 retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2020. The gratuity of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid to the respondent-workman on 21.09.2021 and as there was a delay of 10 months in payment of gratuity the application was preferred under section 7 (3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for seeking payment of interest on delayed period. Learned Controlling Authority has passed an order allowing the application preferred by the respondent-workman and directing the respondent to pay the 10% interest for the period of delayed payment i.e. 01.11.2020 to 01.09.2021 and same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in Gratuity Appeal No.155 of 2023 which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Heard learned advocate Ms.Chauhan for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru for the respondent. 4.1. Learned advocate Ms.Chauhan submits that there was no mens rea for not paying the gratuity in the prescribed time limit, however, due to administrative reasons the delay was caused in payment of the gratuity. However, learned Controlling Authority as well as learned Appellate Authority without considering the same has allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay the 10% interest for the period which is delayed. 4.2. Learned advocate Ms.Chauhan submits that in view of the above submission, the impugned order be quashed and set aside and it may be held that workman is not entitled for the interest directed by the learned court below. 5. 4.2. Learned advocate Ms.Chauhan submits that in view of the above submission, the impugned order be quashed and set aside and it may be held that workman is not entitled for the interest directed by the learned court below. 5. On the other hand learned advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru has submitted that as per the provisions of section 7 (3- A) of the of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, respondent-workman is entitled for the interest if the gratuity is paid beyond period of 30 days from the date of retirement. Learned advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru submits that the reasons which are stated by the petitioner does not fall under the proviso which is mentioned under section 7(3-A) therefore, learned Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority has rightly ordered in his favour and therefore, no interference is required. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the respective parties and perusing the provisions i.e. section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which reads as under :- “(3A) 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 delayed payment on this ground.]” 7. This Court has also considered the decision rendered in Special Civil Application No.2717 of 2022 :- “6. This Court has, while deciding similar issue in Special Civil Application No. 2717 of 2022, held and observed in paras – 8 to 14 as under :- “8. At this stage, it is fruitful to refer the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court with regard to awarding interest while interpreting provisions of Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 9. At this stage, it is fruitful to refer the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court with regard to awarding interest while interpreting provisions of Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 9. 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[1], 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[2], 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.” 10. 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/-.” 11. 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.” 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 13. 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. 14. 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.” 8. On overall consideration this Court is of the view that the present case does not fall under the proviso for which the delay for the payment can be faulted on the part of the employee and employer has obtained the permission in writing from the Controlling Authority for the delayed payment on the above ground, therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no error committed by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority by directing to pay the interest as provided under section 7 (3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act for the period of 10 months and hence no interference is required. This petition is required to be dismissed. Rule is discharged. 9. The amount, if any, lying before the concerned Court/Authority be disbursed, as per the direction issued by the Controlling Authority, in favour of the respondent – workman after verifying his bank details and after following due procedure of law through R.T.G.S. or appropriate mode within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of present order and if any interest accrued on it the same shall be paid from the date of entitlement to the date of actual payment.