IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1159 of 2008 (M/S) M. L. Sharma. …….. Petitioner Versus Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. …… Respondent Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate with Mr. T.C. Pandey, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Urgency Application No. 836 of 2009: For the reasons stated, the Application is allowed. Rejoinder affidavit is taken on record. Writ Petition is taken up for consideration today itself. Writ Petition No. 1159 of 2008 (M/S): The issue for determination in this writ petition is, indeed, very simple. The petitioner retired from the service of the respondent on 24th September 1995. He was not paid the gratuity amount. Accordingly, he approached the Prescribed Authority, who, vide its order dated 22nd April, 1998, allowed the claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity amount by specifically calculating and quantifying the gratuity amount of Rs. 61,005,46/- and directed the respondent to pay this amount to the petitioner along with 10% simple interest from the date of the petitioner’s retirement till the amount was actually paid. It is worthwhile to mention here that in the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, the respondent had taken an objection and a plea that the gratuity amount was not paid by it to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had illegally raised construction on a piece of land belonging to the respondent. The learned Prescribed Authority did not agree with this contention of the respondent as a ground for withholding the gratuity amount. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 1713 of 2001 (M/S) in this Court. This Court, however, dismissed the said Writ Petition vide its Judgment dated 7th January 2004. It is the admitted case of the parties that after the dismissal of the aforesaid Writ Petition, the respondent paid to the petitioner Rs. 66,734.69/- on 23rd January 2004. Since the petitioner did not receive the interest amount as had been directed vide Order dated 22nd April 1998 (supra), he once again moved the Prescribed Authority. This time, the Prescribed Authority i.e. the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 –cum- Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haridwar, vide its Order dated 28th June, 2008, refused and declined the relief of payment of interest at any rate for any period upon the principal gratuity amount purportedly on the ground that this Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 1713 of 2001 (M/S) vide its Judgment dated 7th January, 2004, had declined to grant interest to the petitioner on the gratuity amount. There is no matter of doubt that, in law, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of simple interest at the rate of 10% on the gratuity amount and the contention of the respondent as well as the stand taken by the Controlling Authority in its order dated 28th June, 2008, are incorrect as well as untenable. Apparently the respondent as well as the aforesaid Controlling Authority might have been mislead by the tone and tenor of the operative part of the Judgment dated 7th January, 2004 (supra) passed by this Court. The operative part, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder, which reads thus: “The writ petition lacks merit and no interference can be made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are directed to release the gratuity forthwith failing which the respondent shall be entitled to the interest in accordance with law.” The expression, “to release the gratuity forthwith”, used in the operative part, has wrongly been construed by the respondent as well as the Controlling Authority to mean that this Court had declined to grant interest to the petitioner. A careful perusal of the aforesaid Judgment would clearly reveal that this Court did not at all discuss any issue relating to the respondent’s liability to pay simple interest arising out of the Authority’s Order dated 22nd April, 1998 nor did this Court either decide the aforesaid issue or return any finding that the respondent was not liable to pay interest. Merely because this Court, by a vague expression, used the words “gratuity forthwith”, does not mean that this Court passed any judgment or returned any finding or decided any issue about the respondent not being liable to pay interest. On the contrary, by dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court affirmed the order of the Authority passed on 22nd April 1998 in toto and in its entirety. The net result is that the Order dated 22nd April 1998 had assumed finality with the inevitable consequence that the respondent was liable to pay simple interest. This writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 28th June 2008 is quashed and set aside. By issuance of a writ of mandamus, the respondent is directed to pay simple interest at the rate of 10% on the principal amount of Rs. 61,005.46/- to the petitioner, the interest liability being calculated on the aforesaid principal amount from 24th September, 1995 upto 31st March, 2009 by deducting the excess amount already paid by the respondent to the petitioner. This is subject to the condition that the aforesaid payment is made by the respondent to the petitioner before 30th June 2009. If this is not done on and from 1st April 2009 the respondent shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the aforesaid principal amount as well as the simple interest having accrued thereupon. (V.K. Gupta,C.J.) 01.04.2009 G