THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 4224 of 2002 Dated: 8-7-2010 Between: The Chief General Manager, The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam Area-III, Karimnagar Dist. …Petitioner and Te Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad and another. …Respondents Oral order: This writ petition has been instituted on behalf of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited calling in question the order passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad on 8-2-2002 directing the Singareni Collieries Company to pay interest of Rs. 35,682/- towards the delay in payment of gratuity amount of Rs.1,52,922.38 to the 2nd respondent-workman. The 2nd respondent-workman, though served has not entered appearance in the matter and there is no representation when his name was also called. The 2nd respondent-workman was working as a Driller in the Singareni Collieries Company. He has been allotted a quarter by the Singareni Collieries Company for his occupation. But however, inspite of attaining the age of superannuation and retiring from service of the Singareni Collieries he has not surrendered the vacant possession of the quarter. In those set of circumstances there was delay in settling the gratuity payable to the workman. These basic facts are not in dispute. When once an employee has been allocated a residential quarter for his occupation during the currency of the employment and also for a reasonable period after his retirement, such employees are required to surrender the vacant possession of such a quarter to the employer. If the employer has withhold payment of gratuity only for the sake of securing vacation of the accommodation allotted by it to the employee concerned, the delay in settlement of such gratuity cannot be attributed to the employer but only to the employee. In such circumstances, invoking the provisions for payment of interest on the premise that there was delay in settling the gratuity in favour of a retired employee is not proper. The said act of delay in settling the gratuity is attributable to the employee concerned, therefore, if the employer is to be penalised by imposing penal interest to be paid by him, it would amount to paying a premium to the conduct of the retired employee in not surrendering the vacant possession of a residential accommodation allotted to them for their use and occupation during the currency of their employment. Therefore, the employee cannot take advantage of his own lapses and seek to be compensated by payment of interest. It is a settled principle of law that payment of interest for the monies due is a mode of compensating or mitigating the damage sustained by the individual due to non-availability of the money to which he is otherwise entitled to. In fact the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the Union of India v. Ujagar Lal[1] recognises this very principle. I therefore, do not have any hesitation to set aside the order dated 8-2-2002 passed by the 1st respondent herein to the extent of directing the Singareni Collieries Company to pay interest of Rs.35,682/- for the delayed payment of gratuity of Rs.1,52,922.38. It may also be recorded here that the learned standing counsel Ms. Uma has conceded at the bar that the 2nd respondent-employee has since been paid his gratuity amount as soon as the order has been passed by the 1st respondent. Hence this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated supra. But however without costs. __________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 8th July, 2010 GRR [1] 1996 (2) LLJ page 981.