The court established that compliance with statutory timelines for gratuity payments negates entitlement to interest on delayed payments when no timely claims are made.

JUDGMENT

W. Diengdoh, J. - This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for necessary directions to the respondent authorities to pay interest on delayed payment of gratuity which was received by the petitioners and/or their legal heirs.

2. Mr. A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners No. 1 to 79 are retired employees and the petitioners No. 80 to 95 are the legal heirs of some of the deceased employees of the respondent No. 2/MECOFED.

3. According to the learned counsel, the background fact situation of the case is that the Government of Meghalaya has formulated a scheme called the 'Voluntary Retirement Scheme/Golden Handshake Scheme' for the employees of the MECOFED which was duly accepted by the petitioners herein.

4. It is also submitted that the petitioners then claimed for gratuity and leave encashment which was denied to them. Being aggrieved, the petitioners then filed two writ petitions, being WP(C) No. 320(SH) of 2010 for grant of leave encashment and WP(C) [SH] No. 154 of 2012 for payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

5. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court (Shillong Bench) [as this Court then was] disposed of WP(C) [SH] No. 154 of 2012 with a finding that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to the MECOFED and the respondents therein were accordingly directed to make payment of the same to the petitioners therein, who are also the petitioners herein.

6. The decision in WP(C) [SH] No. 154 of 2012 was assailed before the Division Bench of this Court, after which on being denied relief, a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 35923/2017 was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 02.04.2018 when an assurance was given that those persons who have sought voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme/Golden Handshake Scheme will be paid gratuity.

7. The learned counsel has further submitted that the Government has accordingly sanctioned the amount payable as gratuity to the petitioners on the strength of a communication from the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Meghalaya, dated 02.05.2018, following which the amount due was received by them.

8. The learned counsel has, however, submitted that since there was a delay in the payment of gratuity to the petitioners, they are accordingly entitled to interest on such period of delay as it is the statutory right provided under Section 7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The period of delay, if calculated would come to about 15 years, that is, from the date of their being entitled to the same.

9. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Abdul Kazi Rahman v. GHADC wherein vide judgment dated 18.04.2017 this Court in WP(C) No. 324 of 2016 at para 4, 9, 16, 18 and 19, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has observed and held that the petitioners are entitled to interest on the delayed payment of gratuity as provided under Section 7 (3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

10. The learned counsel has also cited the following authorities in support of the case of the petitioners:

i. A.J. Randhawa Supdg. Engineer (Retd.) v. State of Punjab and Others, (1997) 2 CLJ(Service) 324, para 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 18;

ii. Karnail Singh v. The General Manager Bishrampur Area of SECL Ors., Writ Appeal No. 56 of 2017, order dated 17.03.2017 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, para 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 22, 29, 30, 31 33.

11. Per contra, Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel for the respondent/MECOFED, the principal respondent herein would submit that firstly, there has never occasioned any delayed payment of gratuity to the petitioners herein inasmuch as the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 02.04.2018 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 35923 of 2017 has directed that the