ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner herein seeks to declare proceedings No. CDR/231-D/3395 dated 25-1-2002 of the 1st respondent refusing to pay the interest on the delayed payment of gratuity amount payable to the petitioner on 31-3-2000 for the period of delay from 1-4-2000 to 8-10-2001 as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently to direct the respondents to consider and pay the compound rate of interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner who joined as clerk in the respondents-Cooperative bank is that though he retired on attaining age of superannuation as Assistant general Manager on 31-3-2000, the retirement gratuity payable to him is not paid to him on the ground that a charge memo dated 31-3-2000 was issued. The petitioner challenged the same in w. P. No. 11256 of 2001, which was allowed by this Court on 8-10-2001 following the judgment in W. P. No. 26148 of 2001, dated 25-4-2001 declaring that the respondents have no jurisdiction to continue the disciplinary proceedings after the superannuation and retirement. Thereafter the respondents paid the terminal benefits on 9-10-2001 pursuant to the proceedings dated 6-10-2001. According to the petitioner the total amount payable to him under leave encashment, provident fund contribution, gratuity etc. , was Rs. 5, 22,094-25 ps. The petitioner complains that though the said amount was due to be paid to him on the date of his retirement i. e. , 31-3-2000, it was paid only after a long delay of one and half years i. e. , on 9-10-2001. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents claiming for payment of interest on the delayed payment of the amount and the same was refused by the proceedings dated 25-1-2002, which is impugned in this writ petition.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner having rendered service in the respondent- bank and after attaining superannuation was retired on 31-3-2000, that it is expected that all the retiral benefits would be paid to him on the date of retirement, that the respondents are delayed in paying the retiral benefits to the petitioner for a period of one and half years and that therefore the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment of Rs. 5,22,094-25 ps.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner was issued charge memo on the ground of misappropriation of bank funds on the date of his retirement i. e. , 31-3-2000, that disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner for his alleged involvement in misappropriation, that as per the directions of this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner for payment of retirement benefits he was paid the terminal benefits on 9-10-2001, that withholding of terminal benefits of the petitioner is only due to the fact of pendency of disciplinary action against the petitioner and that therefore the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of gratuity cannot be accepted.

( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the charges of misappropriation of funds on the date of his retirement i. e. , on 31-3-2000. Against the said action of the respondents the petitioner filed a writ petition, wherein this Court directed the respondents to pay all the terminal benefits to the petitioner holding that the respondents have no authority to withhold the terminal benefits. The delay in payment of terminal benefits to the petitioner is only due to the fact that there is a disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and the same was challenged before this Court by way of writ petition and as per the directions of this Court the gratuity amount was paid to the petitioner on 9-10-2001 and in view of the same the delay is caused. Therefore it cannot be said that the respondents intentionally and deliberately withheld the terminal benefits of the petitioner.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document