Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, apart from perusing the record.

2. The petitioner, having joined the respondent Bank in 1995, served it until January 2012, when he secured employment in the District Co- Operative Bank. In the course of time, the petitioner submitted representations to the second respondent to get the gratuity amount due to him paid. The second respondent, however, turned down the petitioner's request, through Ext.P12 dated 20.07.2012, which was assailed in W.P.(C) No. 21250 of 2014.

3. In fact, this Court disposed of W.P. (C) No.21250 of 2014 through Ext.P9 judgment directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's claim for gratuity. In compliance with the Ext.P9 judgment of this Court, the second respondent issued Ext.P11 order dated 21.01.2015 rejecting the petitioner's claim. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning Ext.P11.

4. This Court on 10.06.2015 issued the following interim directions:

"The first respondent shall see to it that eligible gratuity is disbursed to the petitioner by the second respondent Bank within a period of one month."

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in compliance with the interim direction dated 10.06.2015, the respondent Bank paid the entire amount of gratuity due to the petitioner on 08.07.2015.

6. It is very evident from the interim direction extracted above that there is no mandatory direction from this Court that the petitioner should be paid the gratuity. This Court, on the contrary, has only observed that the petitioner be paid the `eligible' gratuity. In that context, the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent needs to be examined.

7. The respondent Bank has gone on record saying that once the petitioner had been relieved from the respondent Bank on 18.01.2012, the Bank transferred his pension account and was willing to pay all the amounts due to him. At that juncture, the audit team, which visited the respondent Bank, orally instructed the respondent Bank that the petitioner's case would not come under the expression 'retirement' as stipulated in Rule 59 of the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Rules.

8. Though the respondent Bank sought a clarification from the first respondent, he has, nevertheless, not given any clarification. It appears that the respondent Bank having heard the petitioner in person, once again, addressed Ext.R3 (a) communication to the first respondent seeking directions, especially in the light of the interim direction given by this Court. Unfortunately, the first respondent does not seem to have responded to Ext.R3(a) either.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank has, at any rate, submitted that the respondent Bank has considered the case of the petitioner on merits, rather than going by the interim direction given by this Court. But for the oral instructions issued by the audit team, the respondent Bank, contends the learned counsel, would have paid the gratuity due to the petitioner.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the respondent Bank has paid the entire amount of gratuity to the petitioner, there is a delay of forty one months and nineteen days. Drawing my attention to relief No.(iii) in the writ petition, the learned counsel would contend that the petitioner is eminently entitled to interest on the delayed payment of gratuity, in terms of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('the Act' for brevity), and also the definitive judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H. Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Copn. Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 1526.

11. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that the delay, if any, has not occurred because of the deliberate inaction on the part of the respondent Bank, but it was due to the oral instructions given by the au