IMPORTANT POINT
An employee's resignation does not negate the right to gratuity and leave encashment, and any delay in payment of gratuity entitles the employee to interest as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.D. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 and Mr. Roopesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner in this writ petition prays that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued, directing the Chairman, Committee of Management/Managing Director, Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited to pay the balance of gratuity due to the petitioner, together with interest on the entire gratuity paid with delay, leave encashment dues, dues on account of medical leave, special pay under the family planning scheme and other dues in consonance with the 6th Pay Commission.

3. The petitioner says that it is not in issue that the Project Director, the Project Engineer, Assistant Project Engineer and Junior Engineers appointed with the NOIDA Dairy Project, would be placed on deputation with the National Dairy Development Board (for short, 'the NDDB') till completion of project, and further for the employees and officers of the NOIDA Dairy Project, the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Employees Service Regulations, 1975 would govern their conditions of service until the framing of separate service rules. The petitioner was appointed on 11/15.08.1992 as an Assistant Project Engineer (Civil) with the NDDB, acting on behalf of the Pradeshik Cooperative Federation Limited (for short, 'the PCDF') on 23.11.1992. He joined as an Assistant Engineer on 23.11.1992 with the NOIDA Dairy Project, an autonomous unit of the PCDF. The petitioner's appointment letter shows that he would remain on deputation with the NDDB, wherefrom he was posted with the NOIDA Dairy Project. He was repatriated to his parent employer, to wit, the PCDF. He joined at the PCDF, NOIDA Dairy Project, NOIDA on 01.09.1999.

4. After serving the PCDF for 16 years, the petitioner resigned on 27.09.2008, giving a month's notice. His resignation was duly accepted by the Chairman, Committee of Management, Parag Dairy NOIDA, previously known as NOIDA Dairy. He was relieved on the same day. He asserts that on the day he resigned, the 6th Pay Commission had already come into force and that entitled him to all benefits of emoluments in terms of the 6th Pay Commission. The petitioner claimed his due gratuity, leave encashment of 259 days, medical leave and what the petitioner calls, other legitimate dues, including special pay under the family planning scheme. All these terminal dues, the petitioner claimed with interest, on account of the said claims being illegally withheld. He represented in the matter time over again. The writ petition is replete with details of these representations that the petitioner preferred. His grievance is that no heed was paid to any of his demands. He sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and in response to one of his applications, he was furnished with an information dated 15.04.2014 that gratuity to the tune of Rs.29,000/- had been paid to the petitioner vide cheque dated 15.05.2012, and Rs.1,15,242/- by a cheque dated 15.04.2014, after deduction of 10% out of the total gratuity payable. Thus, a sum of Rs.1,60,269/- was paid to the petitioner.

5. So far as the leave encashment is concerned, the petitioner was informed that since he had resigned from service, all other claims that the petitioner made, stand refused. This letter was issued to the petitioner on 15.04.2014 under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the aforesaid disposition of his claim, addressed repeat representations to the Milk Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow and other Authorities of the PCDF. The petitioner was in the course of this correspondence informed that leave encashment is not payable to an employee, who resigns service, and so also medical leave. So far as gratuity is concerned, it had been paid to the petitioner in three installments.

6. It is the petitioner's case that gratuity in