IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to interest on delayed payment of gratuity as per Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondent in withholding the petitioner’s retirement benefits i.e. Gratuity, Encashment of Leave, two Annual Increments, Stagnated Increment and Reimbursement of Travel Allowance bills for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- without any authority of law, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in service of the respondent-Federation in the year 1975 as Assistant District Manager and he was promoted from time to time. Subsequently, he has retired from service on 30.06.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation, while he was working as Manager (Planning) at the Head Office. It is the further case of the petitioner that, while he was working as District Manager of State Cooperative Marketing Federation (in short “MARKFED”) at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda, the Cooperative Special Registrar audited MARKFED and submitted a Special Report, dated 04.02.1984, alleging that, on three counts, an amount of Rs. 3,43,869-42 was misappropriated by the petitioner. Based on the report of the Cooperative Special Registrar, the Joint Registrar conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted his report holding that the allegations in the audit were true. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 16(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred as, ‘the APCS Act’) calling for his explanation as to why the alleged amount should not be recovered from his account and an enquiry was conducted under Section 60(1) of the APCS Act. After a detailed consideration of the matter, the Special Cadre Deputy Registrar/District Cooperative Officer, Nalgonda, has passed an order vide proceedings No. 1982/84-E, dated 18.01.1990, holding that the allegation against the petitioner was not proved and the same has become final.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies has issued a show cause notice, dated 17.10.2000, for the very same allegations, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 31.10.2000, bringing to the notice of the officials that an order was already passed on 18.01.1990, and requested the Joint Registrar to drop further action. However, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Joint Registrar has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3,43,869-42 vide order, dated 26.12.2000. Aggrieved by the said surcharge order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) under Section 76 (6) of the APCS Act on 05.02.2001 and the same was allowed vide judgment, dated 16.05.2001, setting aside the order, dated 26.12.2000. Challenging the said order, the Joint Registrar filed W.P. No. 19821 of 2001 before this Court, which was dismissed on 20.09.2012. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has retired from service on 30.06.2002, and the respondent have withheld the retirement benefits of the petitioner i.e. Gratuity, Leave Encashment, two Annual Increments and Stagnated Increments for his continuous service of 25 years and credit balances of tour and allowance, without any authority or power. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Heard Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri G. Ashok Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Cooperative Marketing Federation, appearing for the respondent.

5. It has been contended that by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has retired from service on 30.06.2002 and as on the date of his retirement, neither any disciplinary proceedings were pending nor any charge sheet was issued to him. Despite the same, the respondent have withheld the retirement benefits of the petitioner without any authority of law. It is further contended that the order of Special Cadre DR/DCO, Nalgonda Distri