1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3905 OF 2010. The President/Secretary, Vidarbha Youth Welfare Soc. And another. -: VERSUS :- Shri Dhanraj Rambhau Chaudhari and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 11, 2010. Heard Shri S.G. Jagtap, learned Counsel for petitioners/employer, Shri G.R. Sadar, learned Counsel for respondent No.1/employee and Shri Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 to 4. Respondent no.1/employee retired on superannuation on 31.12.2005, after rendering 21 years of service. His last pay admittedly was Rs. 6026/- per month and accordingly the gratuity has been worked out by the Competent Authority in proceedings under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act at Rs. 73,003/-. The impugned order dated 16.07.2009 awards him 10% interest on said 2 amount from 01.02.2006. Total amount along with interest works out at Rs. 99,111/- and respondent no.1 recovered that amount from the petitioners. Shri Jagtap, learned counsel has pointed out that the petitioners approached this Court on 17.08.2010 and this Court has restrained the respondent no.1 from withdrawing the amount of gratuity in deposit with the Competent Authority. However, the amount was already withdrawn. He has further stated that the petitioners are a grant-in-aid institute and hence the Divisional Social Welfare Officer has to pay the gratuity. He points out that the respondent no.2 has reimbursed to petitioners amount of Rs. 53,535/- only as gratuity payable to respondent no.1. The fact that petitioners run a college receiving grant-in-aid, is not in dispute. The terms and conditions of release of grants or then of release of gratuity by respondent no.2 to it are not before this Court. It is therefore, not necessary for me to look into that aspect. However, the calculations as produced by the petitioners before this Court show that respondent no.2 has considered last pay of respondent no.1 as Rs. 4980/- per month. This figure used by respondent no.1 for further calculation is itself incorrect. The petitioners, therefore, have to move respondent no.2 3 pointing out the correct last salary of respondent no.1 and claim the amount of difference, if any. Shri Jagtap, learned counsel is stating that for no fault on their part, petitioners are required to pay interest at the rate of 10% to respondent no.1. Petitioners can also make this grievance to respondent no.2 and claim reimbursement in accordance with law. Shri Jagtap, learned Counsel has stated that amount of Rs. 53,535/- has been received by the petitioners as amount of gratuity payable to respondent no.1, and petitioners are not in a position to appropriate it. Shri Sadar, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 states that respondent no.1 has received the entire amount of gratuity. He is ready and willing to sign authorization or documents in favour of the petitioners in relation to amount of Rs. 53,535/-. He further points out that respondent no.1 has to recover interest for last about 8 months. In this situation, petitioners are permitted to appropriate the amount of Rs. 53,535/- paid by respondent no.2 to it towards reimbursement of gratuity claim, honoured by it as per the orders of competent Authority. Respondent no.1 is at liberty to take appropriate steps for recovering balance amount of interest from petitioners and respondent no.2 in accordance with the law. 4 The entitlement of petitioners to claim reimbursement in relation to balance amount of gratuity and amount in relation to interest can be agitated in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, as and when occasion therefor arise. With this liberty to the parties and observations, present Writ Petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.