Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

1. Writ Petition No. 40214 of 2013 has been filed by the M/s British India Corporation Ltd., the employer against the order dated 28.02.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), (herein-after referred to as "respondent No. 3") in favour of the Brahma Prakash Shukla, (herein-after referred to as "the employee") and the recovery order dated 05.03.2013.

2. The case set up by the petitioner is that the employee was engaged as Supervisor in the Company since 1969 and he retired on 14.12.2007. Against the notice issued to him for his superannuation the employee filed Writ Petition No. 60393 of 2007 challenging his age of superannuation and due to pendency of the said writ petition, the employee avoided receiving gratuity and avoided handing over the charge to the Company.

3. On 03.05.2010, respondent No. 4 filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 claiming an amount of Rs. 1,64,461/- (Rupees One lac sixty four thousand four hundred sixty one) along with interest and even though the petitioner filed its objections to the said application, respondent No. 5 passed an order dated 25.08.2011 directing the Company to make payment of Rs. 1,64,461/- (Rupees One lac sixty four thousand four hundred sixty one). However, the Controlling Authority did not pass any order for payment of interest.

4. The employee thereafter filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority, respondent no. 3, against the order dated 25.08.2011 claiming interest at the rate of 10% for the period with effect from which the gratuity became payable upto the date of payment being made. The petitioner filed objections stating that interest is not payable on the alleged late payment of gratuity, where delay is caused due to fault of the employee, but the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the employee on 28.02.2013 directing payment of gratuity along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

5. It is the case of the petitioner as stated in the writ petition that the employee was at fault in not handing over charge on attaining the age of superannuation on 14.12.2007 and he actually handed over charge only on 19.03.2013 because he had raised a dispute regarding his age of superannuation.

6. Mr Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that under Rule 7 of Rules framed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, an application has to be made by the employee in Form-I within 30 days from the date the gratuity is payable and under Rule 10 (1), if the employee's application is refused to be accepted by the employer, he is at liberty to file such application before the Controlling Authority. The employee retired on 14.12.2007, but did not file any application claiming gratuity from the petitioner and he kept quiet for almost three years and all of sudden filed an application under Form-N before the Controlling Authority on 03.05.2010, which was allowed only to the extent of gratuity claim by the Controlling Authority and the Controlling Authority rightly did not direct payment of interest as the delay was only caused due to the employee not handing over charge of the post till 2013.

7. Mr Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in D. Prasada Rao vs Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Bank, reported in 2003 (97) FLR 97.

8. Mr Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel, who appears for the employee, on the other hand has pointed out from the order dated 28.02.2013 that the delay in claiming payment of gratuity was condoned by the Controlling Authority and the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 28.05.2011 and it became final, insofar as admissibility of the claim of the employee for gratuity of Rs. 1,64,461/- (Rupees One lac sixty four thousand four hundred sixty one) is concerned.

9. Learned counsel f