IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 10595 of 2004 Between: R. Rangarajan, S/o. Late Sri A. Ramabadrachariar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Resident of #103, Ashraya Apartments, 12-7-273, Mettuguda, Secunderabad - 500 017. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India, rep by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Presonnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, Central Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi. 2 The Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi - 110 001. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ directing the Respondents to pay the petitioner herein his Gratuity amount as the rules provide for such a payment commensurate to the period he served in the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal with 18 % interest from the date of his retirement i.e. 12th November, 2000 till the amount is paid and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VEMURIVENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.10595 of 2004 Oral Order: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri V.Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a former Member (Administration), Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay him the gratuity amount as the rules provide for such a payment commensurate to the period he served in the Tribunal with 18 per cent interest from the date of his retirement i.e., 12-11-2000 till the amount is paid. 3. In fact, there is no much to decide in this matter since the payment of gratuity, which is the epicenter of the whole controversy, has been solved by the statement made by one Smt. Manju Pandey, Director (Administrative Tribunals), Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi, who filed written statement on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, in the counter- affidavit itself, which has been acknowledged by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner. Therefore, we are not going to the question of quantification of the amount that was paid to the petitioner prior to his service as a member of the Tribunal. 4. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated by the deponent, who is the Director, Administrative Tribunals, Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi, that, “The petitioner who had completed 5 years service in the Central Administrative Tribunal may be eligible to retirement gratuity equal to ¼ of the emoluments for each completed period of 6 months service subject to a maximum of 16½ times of emoluments. However, this will also be subject to the condition that the amount of retirement gratuity payable shall not exceed Rs.3,50,000/-. In the light of this latest decision of the Government of India, which is subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, claim of the petitioner relating to payment of gratuity will be examined de novo through Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and the amount as admissible as a fall out of the latest decision would be released, if any.” 5. Therefore, the respondents are directed to make necessary steps to make payment in accordance with the entitlement after making necessary calculation, as per rules. 6. The incidental question is – as to whether the petitioner is entitled for any interest on the gratuity amount for the delayed payment. 7. In this regard, it is to be seen that the petitioner had retired from service on 12-11-2000 on superannuation and the payment of gratuity amount so far has not been made to him. Of course, with the assurance given by the deponent in the counter- affidavit, we expect that the said payment would be made to the petitioner as soon as possible. In such cases, the apex Court as well as this Court, time and again, had stated that the retiral benefits are almost akin to the property of the incumbent. Such payments, in fact, ought to be made unless and until there is any serious dispute, on the date of retirement or within a reasonable period after retirement. 8. But, unfortunately, in the present case, the petitioner was driven to the Court and further more, the counter-affidavit also was not filed for about four years. 9. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the balance amounts to be paid towards the gratuity at the rate of 6 (six) per cent per annum from the date of his retirement i.e., 12-11-2000 till the date of actual payment and the respondents are directed to pay the same to the petitioner within 8 (eight) weeks from today. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, at the stage of admission, with the above observations and directions. No costs. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 07th July, 2008. Ak ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}