Interest on delayed gratuity payment is mandatory under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and cannot be denied unless the delay is due to the employee's fault.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, counsel for the applicant-petitioner, Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Mayank Sinha, counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 5.

2. Instant modification application has been filed with the prayer to modify the order dated 24.05.2024 to the extent that the interest amount on delayed payment of gratuity of amount Rs. 26,897/- be paid to the applicant-petitioner.

3. The Writ A No. 3505 of 2024 (Ram Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) was filed with the following main prayer:-

"Issue a writ order or directions in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs. 26,897/- along with interest which was deducted on 09.09.2004 vide gratuity payment letter no.-982."

4. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was working as an Office Assistant-II in the Office of Executive Engineer, Vidhut Vitran Nigam-Ist, Ayodhya and was superannuated on 31.08.2004. After his retirement, the gratuity amounting Rs.2,32,829/- was paid to him on 9.9.2004 and an amount of Rs.26,897/- was allegedly withheld without giving any cogent reason. Even after several request regarding the payment of the gratuity, no action was taken and being aggrieved the above-said writ petition was instituted.

5. After hearing the parties at length in the above-said writ petition, the Writ Court passed the order on 24.05.2024, which is reproduced hereinunder:-

""On 6.5.2024, following order was passed:-

"Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the order dated 24-08-2023 passed by this court in Writ A No. 6130 of 2023, the representation of the petitioner is decided vide order dated 04-12-2023, wherein making justification of the deduction of the amount of Rs. 26,897/- from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. He next added that the aforesaid amount is deducted on the ground that the same was paid as excess payment, during the service period but there is no law with respect to the deduction of the amount from the gratuity. He also added that in the absence of any such provisions, the order itself is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

In view of the above, Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing appearing for the State as well as Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 are hereby directed to seek instructions that under what provision, the amount of Rs. 26,897/- has been deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner ?

As prayed, list/put up this matter in the next week, as fresh."

Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5, on the basis of instructions, submits that though the order has been passed for deduction of amount of Rs.26,897/- from the payment of gratuity but there is no overt provision for deduction of the same.

Since the authorities have failed to provide any instructions to the counsel regarding provision of deduction of any amount from gratuity of an employee, the order dated 4.12.2023 cannot sustain and, thus, the same is hereby quashed.

The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.5 to consider and the decide the matter afresh with respect to payment of amount of Rs.26897/- against the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.With the afores