IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal principle established is that gratuity, as a retirement benefit, must be determined and paid to eligible employees in a timely manner as mandated by The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay gratuity, which is left unpaid to the tune Rs.4,09,550/-along with interest from the date it fell due-30.09.2007.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Ramesh I. Zirali and Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli appearing for the petitioner, the learned CGSC Sri. M.B. Kanavi appearing for respondent No.1-Union of India and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 7 and learned counsel Sri. Mallikarjunsamy B. Hiremath appearing for respondent No.6.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

The petitioner is appointed a First Division Clerk at the Postpartum Centre attached to the Jawarharlal Nehru Medical College, Belgaum on 01.12.1973. After completing 34 years of service, the petitioner retires on attaining the age of superannuation. There were several proceedings in the interregnum i.e. between the date of entry of service of the petitioner and his retirement, which are not germane to be noticed. After the retirement, the petitioner was to have been paid gratuity in terms of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short). This was not paid, which drove the petitioner, to file an application before the Controlling Authority under the Act to determine the gratuity and direct its payment.

The application is allowed by the Authority in terms of its order dated 31.05.2012 after hearing the parties, determining the gratuity to be paid at Rs.4,09,550/-with interest at 10% per annum from 30.09.2007. The said order becomes final, as the respondent did not question the said order or the determination by the Controlling Authority. The respondent did not pay the gratuity as was directed by the Controlling Authority. This has led the petitioner before this Court in the subject petition.

4. Respondent No.1-Union of India have filed their statement of objections but the State is yet to, despite passage of 9 years.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Controlling Authority determines the gratuity at the aforesaid amount and directs its payment within three months from 31.05.2012, failing which, it was also directed that it would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The order, despite it becoming final, is not yet implemented, as the petitioner, who is now aged 74 years, is yet to receive the gratuity that he is entitled to for his working in the institution for 34 years.

6. The learned Government Pleader would seek to plead helplessness, as he received no instruction with regard to payment of gratuity or otherwise to the petitioner, in terms of the order of the Controlling Authority. The counsel for the Union of India-Sri. M.B. Kanavi would only take this Court through the documents appended to the statement of objections but would not dispute the entitlement of the petitioner for receipt of gratuity.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The petitioner joins the service of the institution-Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College on 01.12.1973, retires on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2007 and is relieved from the office of the Postpartem Centre of the Medical College where he works for 34 years. Gratuity was not paid to the petitioner on the ground that a dispute with regard to the service of the petitioner was pending adjudication in Writ Petition No.26349/2004. This was concerning regularization of services of the petitioner’s working at the Postpartum Centre created under the Centrally sponsored scheme of the Family Welfare Department of the year 1969. The Co-ordinate Bench allows the petition by rendering several directions.

9. The issue in the lis does not concern the interpretation of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench. On retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner