IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2301 of 2006 HINDUSTAN FERTILIZER CORPORATION LIMITED, BARAUNI UNIT, A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING AT AND P.O. BARAUNI URVARAKNAGAR, P.S. BARAUNI, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI(BIHAR) THROUGH ITS INCHARGE SRI SIYA SHARAN SHARMA, SON OF LATE BASANT KUMAR SHARMA. Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER(CENTRAL)-CUM-APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR, P.S. KOTWALI TOWN AND DISTT. PATNA. 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER(CENTRAL) CUM CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR P.S. KOTWALI, TOWN AND DISTT. PATNA. 3. SRI JADGISH PRASAD SINGH, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, EX SENIOR TECHNICIAL HFC BARAUNI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RATAULI, POST BINDOPUR, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. ----------- 02. 04.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India. 2. Petitioner Corporation is aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2005, Annexure-4, whereunder order directing the petitioner to pay interest on account of delay in payment of gratuity to respondent no.3 has been affirmed by the appellate authority as there was delay in releasing the gratuity amount to respondent no.3. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no.3 continued to occupy the official quarter even after his retirement and as he was occupying the quarter of the Corporation after his retirement, he was not responding to the communication 2 made to him for collecting the amount of gratuity and thereby the payment of gratuity amount to respondent no.3 was delayed. Aforesaid submission has been considered by the appellate authority in middle paragraph-2 at internal page 4 of the impugned appellate order dated 19.12.2005, Annexure-4 and it has been observed by the appellate authority that in terms of Sub- Section-(4)(a) of Section-7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the employer was required to have deposited the gratuity amount with the Controlling Officer on the failure of respondent no.3 to appear for accepting the amount. 4. Petitioner employer having not taken recourse to the provisions contained in Sub-Section-(4) of Section-7 of the Act to deposit the gratuity amount of respondent no.3 with the Controlling Officer, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned. The writ petition is dismissed, however with observation that petitioner Corporation may take steps in accordance with law for recovery of the penal rent from respondent no.3 for unauthorized occupation of the quarter after his retirement. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)