( 1 ) A large number of Letters Patent Appeals have been filed against the judg- ment of the learned Single Judge dated 22. 2. 1992 by which a large number of writ peti- tion were disposed of. The questions of law involved in these appeals are exactly identical, therefore, we propose to dispose of these appeals by one common judgment. The learned Single Judge also disposed of all the writ petitions by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge has dealt with the facts of one writ petition. We also deem it appropriate to reiterate the facts of only LPA No. 58/1992 arising out of writ petition No. 1110/89 in order to appreciate the controversy involved in the case.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 joined the appellant company on 1/06/1943. On 2. 1. 1964 he was allotted-a residential quarter in the premises of the appellant mill. The respon- dent retired from service on 6. 6. 1983. The respondent was allotted a quarter on leave and licence basis on the specific condition that he would vacate the accommodation within 4 days of cessation of the service by the management. Admittedly till date the respondent has not vacated the quarter which is the main grievance of the appellant before us. In other connected appeals also the respondents-workmen have not vacated the quarters though they have retired from the service of the appellant mill several years ago.

( 4 ) INITIALLY because of the non-vacation of the quarters, respondent s dues, includ- ing the gratuity amount, were not released. The respondent applied to the Controlling authority under the Act for the release of the gratuity amount along with interest. The application was moved along with an application for condonation of delay in Filing the application for directions for payment of his gratuity. The Controlling Authority directed the appellant to pay the gratuity with 10% interest.

( 5 ) THE appellant aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority filed an ap- peal under Section 7 (7) of the Act. The appeal was dismissed and the finding of the controlling Authority that the amount of the gratuity cannot be linked with the vaca- tion of the quarter was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The appellant still not satisfied with the order of the Appellate Authority approached the learned Single judge by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge by a detailed judgment upheld the order of the Appellate authority directing the appellant to pay the gratuity amount with 10% interest.

( 6 ) IT may be pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the writ petition because of the direction of the court, the gratuity amount along with interest has been paid in this case and in all other connected cases. Now, the short question which falls for our consideration is whether the direction to the appellant lor making the payment of gratuity to the respondents-workmen was illegal and this court should direct the workmen to refund the gratuity with interest because they did not vacate the residen- tial quarters allotted to them while they were in the employment of the appellant ? the appellant in these appeals has made the following submissions.

( 7 ) MR. Harvinder Singh the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the controlling Authority erred in condoning the delay of the respondent in filing the ap- plication for directions to the appellant to release the gratuity along with interest. He further submitted that the Appellate Authority and the learned Single Judge were in error in not interfering with the judgment and order of the Controlling Authority.

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has placed, reliance oh UOI and Anr. v. K. Balakrishna Nambiar, 1998 (2) SCC 706. In this case their Lordship of the Supreme court observed that interest could not be payable by the Union of India to the respon- dent on the gratuity amount of Rs. 23,888. 00 for the respondent was in unauthorised occupation of the Governm