Delay in gratuity payment establishes a right to interest for the legal heirs, reaffirming employers' obligation under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks an order from this Court directing the Opposite Party Bank to release the terminal dues of her late husband, which were allegedly excluded from the previously sanctioned amount.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) Late Sarbeswar Jena, the husband of the petitioner, was appointed by the UCO Bank as Peon and joined the Ghanteshwar Branch on 27.09.1980.He was drawing salary at initial basic pay of Rs. 245/- with applicable rate of D.A & H.R.A in September 1980.

(ii) Mr. Sarbeswar Jena retired from his position as Peon-cum-Farash at the UCO Bank, Bhadrak Branch, on 30.04.2014, upon reaching the age of superannuation. Allegedly, the Bank also did not issueany retirement letter to him.

(iii) Following his retirement, the gratuity amount of Rs. 2,37,217/- was paid to Mr. Jena on 02.03.2016. However, Mr. Sarbeswar Jena passed away on 02.08.2016.

(iv) Late Sarbeshwar Jena had previously approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 1033 of 2016 seeking payment of all due wages, including basic pay, increment, Dearness Allowance (D.A.), and House Rent Allowance (H.R.A.) from 1981 until April 2014, along with the consequential retirement dues such as Gratuity, Pension, and applicable interest, within a prescribed time period.

(v) In response to the court order, dated 22.01.2016, the Opposite Party Bank disbursed the admissible dues amounting to Rs.17,00,949.45/- to the husband of the petitioner towards the retiral benefits for the services of the petitioner’s late husband.

(vi) However, the petitioner contends that the amount of Rs. 17,00,949.45/-was released in haste, without a proper and thorough calculation of the exact dues in accordance with the Bank’s rules. The petitioner alleges that no Provident Fund (PF) number was ever allotted to the late Sarbeswar Jena, and that the due interest on the gratuity amount was not paid, as the gratuity was disbursed with a delay of two years.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) It is submitted that Sarbeswar Jena retired from his position as Peon-cum-Farash on 30.04.2014. However, the gratuity amount of Rs. 2,37,217/- was not disbursed to him until 02.03.2016. The petitioner contends that due to this inordinate delay in payment, she is entitled to interest on the gratuity amount for the period of delay. Accordingly, the petitioner claims an additional sum of Rs. 1,73,840/- towards interest on the delayed gratuity payment.

(ii) Further, the petitioner claims Rs. 5,37,288.64/- towards the contributions to the P.F./ including both the employee's and the Bank’s contributions/ in addition to an arrear salary of Rs. 2,15,020.40/-. Ergo, the total claim made by the petitioner amounts to Rs.10,26,260.04/-.

(iii) The petitioner also submits that her husband, Sarbeswar Jena, was never sanctioned any annual increments by the controlling office authority, for reasons best known to them. As a consequence, by the time he reached the age of superannuation on 30.04.2014, he was still receiving a monthly salary based solely on the initial basic pay in the sub-staff cadre, with periodic wage revisions, and applicable D.A. and H.R.A.

(iv) This resulted in a substantial deprivation of his