:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2161 OF 2008 PETITION NO.2161 OF 2008 PETITION NO.2161 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra and others ..Petitioner V/s Jaiprakash Narayan Chitale ..Respondents Mr. D.A. Patil,AGP for the petitioners CORAM CORAM CORAM : J.N.PATEL AND : J.N.PATEL AND : J.N.PATEL AND A.A. A.A. A.A. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 7TH APRIL, 2008 : 7TH APRIL, 2008 : 7TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner-State of Maharashtra is impugning the decision in the matter which came to be passed on 30-4-2007 in Original Application No.49 of 2007 by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. 3. The petitioners were denied gratuity amount of Rs. 2,00,063/- which was due to respondent on 1st March, 2000 on the ground that the department wanted to hold enquiries against the respondent in respect of misappropriation of funds while he was working as General Manager in Government Milk Scheme on the :2: basis of the charge that during the said period inferior quality of milk was provided to the Greater Bombay. Milk Scheme for which the respondent was responsible resultied in huge financial losses. Unfortunately for the State and fortunately for the employee respondent, he came to be exonerated of the such charges. The State Government took almost three years to take a decision in the matter i.e. from 1-1-2003 and 16-3-2006 and found him not guilty and exonerated him. It has been held by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal that under Rule 129A of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 an employee is entitled to claim interest on delayed payment of gratuity, if the delay in payment was not attributable to the failure on the part of the Government servant to comply with the procedure prescribed and therefore, found the respondent who was the applicant before the MAT entitled for interest on delayed payment of gratuity from 1-3-2002 to 15.6.2006. 3. The contention of the learned AGP in the matter is that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has overlooked clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of :3: Rule 130 of the said Rule of 1982 which provides that.. "no gratuity shall be paid to the Government Servant until the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon." There is proviso to the said Rule which provides that.. "where the departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979, for Imposing any of the minor penalties specified in subclauses (i),(ii) and (iv) of clause (1) of Rule 5 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorised to be paid to the Government servant." It is submitted that as the respondent was facing departmental enquiry with the charges that amount to major misconduct, the State was justified in not paying him gratuity till he was exonerated. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned AGP that the MAT could not have directed the State Government to pay interest on the gratuity for delayed payment, when the enquiry was pending. 4. In our view MAT has not committed any error or illegality in granting interest on the said amount of :4: gratuity, for the reason the State has failed to explain as to why there was such a long delay in concluding the departmental proceeding as clause (c) of sub-rule 1 of Rule 130 can be read only in those matters where the departmental proceedings are held diligently and with required expediency otherwise the employee can be put to disadvantage by getting such departmental proceedings pending for years together without any justification. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed. (J.N.PATEL, (J.N.PATEL, (J.N.PATEL, J.) J.) J.) ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)