The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an employee is entitled to interest on delayed payments of gratuity, as determined by Section 7.

JUDGMENT :

Ved Prakash Vaish, J.

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or order for directing the respondents to release the balance amount of the gratuity sanctioned by the respondents.

2. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Lot Mondol, Land Reforms Branch of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council on 04th January, 1971. The petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 4 and subsequently the petitioner had joined the office of the respondent and served till his retirement.

3. On attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner retired from service on 30th April, 2009 as Lot Mondol of Land Record Branch, of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, however, retiral benefits were not paid by the respondents for almost 21(twenty one) months after his retirement. The respondent No. 4 vide order dated 24th January, 2011 sanctioned a sum of Rs. 4,75,380/- (Rupees Four lacs Seventy Five Thousand Three Hundred Eighty only) towards the amount of gratuity and a sum of Rs. 1,58,460/- (Rupees One lac Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty only) being the amount of leave salary and the said amount was payable in three equal installments.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that despite repeated requests the amount of gratuity and leave salary was not released by the respondents. The respondents paid the amount of Rs. 1, 58,460/- (Rupees One lac Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty only) towards the leave salary in the year 2012 and Rs. 3, 16,920/- (Rupees Three lacs Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty only) was paid in two installments on 14.06.2011 and 26.04.2014 towards the amount of gratuity and the petitioner was assured that the balance amount of gratuity would be released at the earliest. However, the balance amount of gratuity was not release by the respondents and the balance amount of gratuity of Rs. 1, 58,460/- (Rupees One lac Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty only) was paid by the respondents on 1st November, 2016. The counsel for petitioner has filed an affidavit in this regard today.

5. The respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition and have opposed the petition. It is stated by the respondents that the process and formalities to assess the amount regarding leave salary and gratuity and for obtaining the sanction of the authority takes time. It is stated that the petitioner never approached the respondents in this connection. It is also stated that the respondents have paid the leave salary on 26th April, 2014 and the first installment of gratuity of Rs. 1, 58,460/- (Rupees One lac Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty only) was paid on 26th April, 2014. The second installment of gratuity of Rs. 1, 58,460/- (Rupees One lac Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty only) was paid on 14th June, 2011 and last installment of gratuity of Rs. 1, 58,460/- (Rupees One lac Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty only) was paid on 01st November, 2016.

6. Learned counsel for respondents urged that the petitioner is not entitled to any interest as the petitioner has not claimed the amount of interest.

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the materials on record.

8. Undisputedly, the amount of leave salary and the amount of gratuity have been paid by the respondents. However, the amount of gratuity was paid on 14.06.2011, 26.04.2014 and the last installment of Rs. 1,58,460/- was paid on 01st November, 2016 i.e. after filing of the present writ petition. Thus, the limited issue remains regarding entitlement of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.

9. The petitioner though not claimed interest in the writ petition, however, while placing reliance on the judgement in the case of 'M/s Champaran Sugar Co. Ltd v. Joint Labour Commissioner And Appellate Authority And Others' reported as AIR 1987 PATNA 96