The main legal point established is that the delayed payment of retirement benefits, including gratuity and leave salary, entitles the employee to interest as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

JUDGMENT :

V.P. Vaish, J.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Shri Abdul Zinnah Mondal for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or order for directing the respondents to release the sanctioned retirement benefits being gratuity and leave salary to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Inspector of Taxes in Taxation Branch of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) on 14th August, 1978. He was confirmed in the year 1985 and was re-designated as Enforcement Sub Inspector.

3. On attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner retired from service on 31st December, 2011 as Enforcement Sub Inspector. However, the retiral benefits were not paid by the respondents for almost four months after his retirement. He moved an application on 19.04.2012 before the respondent No. 2 and thereafter the process of settling and fixing the amount of gratuity and leave salary of the petitioner was started.

4. The petitioner stated that the respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 17th October, 2012 sanctioned a sum of Rs. 9,38,700/- (Rupees Nine Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred only) being the gratuity and leave salary and the same was payable in three equal instalments. However, the amount of Rs. 4,89,345/- (Rupees Four Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Forty Five only) was deducted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite repeated request and representations, gratuity and leave salary was not released by the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the respondents have released all the retiral benefits to the persons who were junior to him and retired much later than the petitioner, however, after lapse of more than four years, retiral benefits of the petitioner are not being paid by the respondents without any cogent and plausible reason.

7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that rights under Article- 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India are being violated by the respondents and unless protected, it would lead to deprivation of the petitioner's right to livelihood.

8. It is further contended on behalf the petitioner that the respondents have illegally withheld payment of gratuity and leave salary of the petitioner without any reason.

9. During the course of arguments, Mr. S.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not disputing deduction of Rs. 4, 89,345/- (Rupees Four Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Forty Five only). He also submits that the respondents has paid Rs. 3, 12,900/- (Rupees Three Lacs Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred only) towards leave salary on 30th April, 2016 and Rs. 4, 49,355/- (Rupees Four Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Five only) towards the gratuity on 30th May, 2016 and no amount is pending towards the leave salary and gratuity. However, the petitioner is claiming interest on the delayed payment.

10. Per contra, the respondents have opposed the petition by filing counter affidavit. The respondents have stated that the petitioner misappropriated the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council revenue of Rs. 4, 89,345/- (Rupees Four Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Forty Five only). Thus, the petitioner is entitled to leave salary of Rs. 3, 12,900/- (Rupees Three Lacs Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred only) and Rs. 4,49,355/- (Rupees Four Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Five only) towards the gratuity after deducting the amount of Rs. 4, 89,345/- (Rupees Four Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Forty Five only) from the total amount of Rs. 9, 38,700/- (Rupees Nine Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred only).

11. The respondents have further stated that due to financial crunch retiral benefits could not be paid to the petitioner and after deducting the misappropriated amount, the due amount was paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner suppressed regarding misappropriation of funds to the tun