IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2204 of 2026 ================================================================ CHIEF ENGINEER ZONE 2, GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD & ANR.

Versus DILIPKUMAR P MANAVADARIYA & ORS.

================================================================

Appearance:

MR. HARDEEP L MAHIDA(7112) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MS ASHLESHA M PATEL(6127) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.

PRACHCHHAK Date : 20/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Controlling Authority, Ahmedabad in Gratuity Case No.338 of 2023 and the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ahmedabad in Gratuity Appeal No.55 of 2024.

2. Heard Mr. Hardeep Mahida, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Ashlesha Patel, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record.

3. Mr.Mahida, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the Controlling Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority awarding interest at the rate of 10% is illegal, unjust and contrary to the facts and material available on record and contrary to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Mr.Mahida, learned counsel urges the Court that the impugned orders passed by the concerned authorities may be quashed and set aside and present petition may be allowed.

4. I have perused the material along with the relevant documents available on record. I have also gone through the impugned order passed by the Controlling Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

5. It appears that the respondent retired from service on 28.02.2019 and, therefore, as per rules, he was entitled to get the payment of gratuity on that day i.e. 28.02.2019. However, the authority has not paid the amount of gratuity on that day. Therefore, the respondent – workman approached Controlling Authority and the Controlling Authority directed the concerned authority to pay 10% simple interest on the gratuity amount from 01.04.2019 to 20.01.2022. Against the said order, the concerned authority-Board had approached the Appellate Authority by filing Gratuity Appeal. After hearing both the parties, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

6. This Court has, while deciding similar issue in Special Civil Application No. 2717 of 2022, held and observed in paras – 8 to 14 as under:-

“8. At this stage, it is fruitful to refer the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court with regard to awarding interest while interpreting provisions of Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

9. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Dhirendra Pal Singh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 49 Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-

“Head Note:B Service Law- Retirement/Superannuationretiral Benefits- Gratuity and Pension-Interest-Withholding of 30% of gratuity and pensionary dues found to be invalid.

9. In State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair[1], this Court has held that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on the retirement but are valuable rights in their hands, and any culpable delay in disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest. In said case the Court approved 6% per annum interest on the amount of pension decreed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. As to the rate of interest on amount of gratuity Section 7(3-A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, it is provided that if the amount of gratuity payable is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub