THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.2245 of 2006 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 27.09.2005 passed in O.A.No.2656 of 2002 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and for quashing the same. 2. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 28.04.1994 on the ground that he committed certain irregularities when he was working as Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry, Nizamabad. Pending disciplinary proceedings, the first respondent vide proceedings dated 18.06.1994 permitted the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 30.06.1994 on attaining the age of superannuation. According to the petitioner, out of total pension of Rs.4,97,985/-, he was paid only Rs.2,95,258/- towards provisional pension in periodical monthly instalments and was not paid gratuity. While so, on 03.06.1995 i.e., after one year of his retirement, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo, for which, he submitted his explanation on 13.07.1995 denying the allegations. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 20.01.1997 holding that the charges framed against the petitioner were not proved. Subsequently, the first respondent dropped the disciplinary proceedings against him vide G.O.Rt.No.564 dated 24.11.1999 treating the period of suspension i.e., from 30.04.1994 to 30.06.1994, as on duty. Thereafter, the Accountant General released pension and gratuity vide letter dated 10.01.2001 and the petitioner was paid gratuity of Rs.1,00,000/- and arrears of pension at Rs.2,02,727/- on 22.03.2001, but he was not paid interest on the delayed payment of said gratuity and pension. Hence, he filed O.A.No.2656 of 2002 before the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity and arrears of pension for the period from 01.07.1994 to 22.03.2001 and the same was partly allowed on 27.09.2005 directing the respondents to pay interest in accordance with the rules in respect of the delayed payment of pension and other retiral benefits with effect from 24.02.2000 till the date of payment. Since the petitioner denied payment of interest @ 18% from the date of retirement i.e., 01.07.1994 till the date of payment of retiral benefits i.e., 22.03.2001, he filed the present writ petition challenging the said O.A. 3. Respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that they have complied with the order impugned by sanctioning an amount of Rs.3,425/- being interest payable on the delayed payment of gratuity @ 4.5% to the petitioner as per Rule 46(1-A) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short ‘the Rules’), vide proceedings dated 18.03.2006. They further stated that as the petitioner has been permitted to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation while he was under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings, anticipatory pension has also been paid to him @ 75% of normal pension till finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. They also stated that since there was no delay on the part of the respondents in paying the pensionary benefits, there is no need to pay interest to him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there was substantial delay on the part of the respondents in issuing the charge memo at the fag end of service of the petitioner with false and baseless allegations. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted interest for the period from the date of dropping of the disciplinary proceedings till the date of release of pensionary benefits. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the executive instructions under Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’) and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit as per the said provision. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that there is no delay on the part of the respondents in paying the pensionary benefits and that as per Rules, they have sanctioned an amount of Rs.3,425/- vide proceedings dated 18.03.2006 being interest payable on the delayed payment of gratuity @ 4.5% to the petitioner. He further contended that the Tribunal has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the order impugned. 6. There is no dispute that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were dropped vide proceedings dated 24.11.1999, as the charges framed against him were not proved. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was paid all the retiral benefits, but according to him, he was not paid interest on the delayed payment of gratuity and pension from 01.07.1994 to 22.03.2001. Having observed that there was no delay on the part of the respondents, the Tribunal directed them to pay interest in accordance with the Rules in respect of the delayed payment of pension and other retiral benefits with effect from 24.02.2000 till the date of actual payment. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to interest as per Section 7(3-A) of the Act, which reads as under: “If the amount of gratuity payable under sub- section (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify: Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground”. The above mentioned provision clearly says that in case of non-payment of gratuity, simple interest has to be paid and not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits as per the notification issued from time to time. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 7. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly passed the order impugned, which needs no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date25.02.2010 SJ