JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner for the following reliefs: -

For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith release the Gratuity and Leave Encashment as the petitioner has already superannuated from service on 31.01.2025.

AND/OR

Petitioner further prays for any other relief/reliefs, as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings is that the petitioner was appointed on 01.10.1986 to the post of Assistant in the office of the Managing Director, BISCOLAMF. Upon bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, the services of the petitioner stood allocated to the newly created State of Jharkhand under JHASCOLAMF, where he continued to discharge his duties uninterruptedly till the date of his superannuation.

3. During the course of his service, the petitioner was duly granted the benefits of 1st ACP, 2nd MACP and 3rd MACP, and was also extended the benefits of the 6th and 7th Pay Revisions.

4. Upon superannuation, the petitioner submitted representations before the respondent authorities seeking release of gratuity and leave encashment. However, certain alleged infirmities were pointed out by the respondents, pursuant to which explanations were sought from the petitioner, which he duly furnished. Despite the same, the respondents found the explanation to be unsatisfactory and directed the petitioner to appear and submit further clarification.

5. Ultimately, according to the petitioner the respondent authorities proceeded to release leave encashment only for 147 days as against the admissible 300 days, and gratuity to the extent of Rs. 18,38,925/- as against the rightful entitlement of Rs. 21,21,836/-.

6. Being aggrieved by such arbitrary and unlawful curtailment of his legitimate post-retiral benefits, the petitioner has been constrained to prefer the present writ application.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that in terms of Section 7(3) and 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the employer is under a statutory obligation to arrange payment of gratuity within a period of thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the employee. It was contended that in the event of failure to make such payment within the stipulated period, the employer is liable to pay simple interest, as notified by the Central Government, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable till the date of actual payment, unless the delay is attributable to the employee.

8. It was further submitted that the illegal withholding and delayed disbursement of gratuity and other post-retiral benefits by the respondent authorities is contrary to the settled principles of law, and in support thereof; reliance has been placed on the judgment in Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.,  (2007) 4 JCR 1 (Jhr)

9. It was next contended that the gratuity amount paid to the petitioner is not in accordance with the statutory formula prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs. 18,38,925/- towards gratuity; whereas the correct amount payable, as per law, is Rs. 21,21,836/-.

10. It was also submitted that the petitioner has also been arbitrarily deprived of full leave encashment, inasmuch as, payment has been made only for 147 days instead of the admissible 300 days, resulting in payment of Rs. 5,46,105/- as against the rightful entitlement of Rs. 11,14,500/-. He further submitted that Jharkhand/Bihar Pension Rule is not applicable in the case of Petitioner as the provision of granting pension is not applicable in JHASCOLAMPF

11. It was lastly submitted that the calculation of gratuity by the respondent authorities is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the statutory formula. The correct