THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.3555 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of the 3rd respondent in the year 1977. He took voluntary retirement, with effect from 03.05.1999. He was entitled to be paid gratuity for the period during which he was in service. Alleging that the gratuity was not paid, he approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the 2nd respondent herein, by submitting claim application No.2 of 2001. Through order, dated 31.07.2001, the 2nd respondent allowed the application and directed the 3rd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,69,114.50 p., together with simple interest at 10%. The 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the 1st respondent under the relevant provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act (for short ‘the Act’). One of the conditions for maintaining an appeal is that the amount ordered by the primary authority shall be deposited. The 3rd respondent deposited the principal amount of Rs.1,69,114.50 p., but did not deposit the interest component. On that ground, the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal. At a later point of time, the 3rd respondent deposited the amount of interest also. Taking the same into account, the 1st respondent passed an order, dated 07.02.2002, directing that the appeal be numbered. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the appeal preferred by the 3rd respondent was dismissed by the 1st respondent and the impugned order is passed almost as a measure of review. He contends that the first respondent is not conferred with the power to review his own order. Sri T.S.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, on the other hand, submits that, in case there was any deficit in deposit of the amount, the 1st respondent ought to have returned the appeal, but by a mistaken impression it was dismissed. He contends that when the balance of the amount was deposited, the appeal was numbered and no exception can be taken to the impugned order. Section 7 of the Act prescribes the manner in which the appeal can be presented. One of the conditions is that the amount determined by the primary authority must be deposited and a certificate to that effect that must be enclosed with the memorandum of appeal. The 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 31.07.2001, holding that the 3rd respondent shall be under obligation to pay a sum of Rs.1,69,114.50 p., with simple interest at 10%, per annum. Under a bona fide impression that the payment of principal amount would constitute compliance with the condition, the 3rd respondent paid that amount. However, on the ground that the interest on the amount was not deposited, the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal. Such a course is totally impermissible. If the memorandum is not accompanied by a receipt of deposit of the entire amount, or if there exists deficit amount, the only course open to the appellate authority is to return the appeal, leaving it open to the appellant to comply with the direction. The 3rd respondent realized the mistake committed by him and rectified it by directing that the appeal be numbered on deposit of the balance. This Court does not find any legal, or factual, error in the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The 1st respondent shall dispose of the appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.20.01.2011. GJ