*»». mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION fS) No. 2935 of2007 R.L.Rusia aged 69 years, S/o Late Shri .G.P.Rusia, Ex-Manager (Purchase) H.S.C.L. Bhilai Unit, R/o Shashi Sadan Vidya Vihar Maharaja Chowk, Opposite Bharat Gas, Near MuktaNagar, AT & P.0. Durg 491001 (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Hindustan Steel Works Const. Ltd. 5/1 CoiTUTiissariat Road, Hasting Kolkata - 700022 (W.B.) 2. General Manager, Hindustan Steel Works Const. Ltd. Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and Disti-ict Durg 490001 (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: ShriAjay Shrivastava, Advocate forthepetitioner. Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate with Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondents. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 26U1 day of June, 2009) Heard. The petitioner, while working as Manager (Pm-chase) in the respondent- company, on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.1996 retired from service. The retiral dues ofthe petitioner could not be settled. The petitioner accordingly approached the PIigh Court in W.P. No. 3013/2006. This Court, after having considered all the aspects, reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents, directed the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner and release the retiral dues expeditiously Accordingly, respondent authorities released retiral dues including gratuity on 3 February, 2006 to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-. Before approaching the High Court, fhe respondents had paid a sum ofRs. 70,000/- to the petitioner on 14.10.1998 as retiral dues. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel relying on the provisions ofsection 7 ofthe Payment of Gratuity Aet, 1972 (for short 'the Act, 1972') submits that an employee is entitled to payment ofgratuity within a period of30 days and if the said payment is not made within the prescribed period, the employee is entitled to interest under provisions of section (3A) of section 7 of the Act, 1972. It is fiirfher submitted that the rate of interest has been fixed by notification published on 1 October, 1987 in the gazette as 10 %. There is no variation thereafter in the rate of interest. Since the petitioner has already ; B9 4. been paid the gratuity amount under the provisions of section 2 and (3A) of the Act, 1972. The petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 10% from the date it became payable till the payment was made. Shri Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, submits that the gratuity could not be released on account of departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleading and documents appended thereto, it is found that the respondents have failed to establish that the payment of gratuity was held on account of any enquiry. Further, the respondents have also not filed any document in support of their contention md even no averment has been made in the return filed by the respondents. Thus, the petitioner cannot be denied the statutory interest on account ofdelay caused by the respondents. Sub section (3A) ofsection 7 ofthe Act, 1972 reads as under: "(3A) Ifthe amount ofgratuity 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 Govemment from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as the Govemment may, by notifieation speciiy: Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault ofthe employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing &om the controlling authority for the delay payment on this ground." The respondent-authorities are directed to calculate simple interest at the rate of 10% fi-om the date it becaiiie payable i.e. from retirement till payment was made, and make payment accordingly within a period of four weeks from the date ofreceipt ofacopy ofthis order. In view ofthe aforestated reasons, the petition is allowed with cost quantified to be Rs. 5000/- payable by the respondents to the petitioner. —---' Amit Saus',.»^a'nt" 3ud&e -\ ^ v . .^ "y