THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.11179 OF 2002 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The 3rd respondent herein was appointed as NMR in the 2nd petitioner – Godavari Co-operative Milk Producers Union, and he joined duty on 13.3.1973 and he continued as such and subsequently with eﬀect from 1.7.1975, he was appointed as Dairy Attendant. After serving for a period of about 23 years, he retired from service on 31.3.1998 by opting voluntary retirement scheme. As the gratuity amount was not paid after his retirement, he ﬁled an appeal before the Controlling Authority and during the pendency of the proceedings, the 1st petitioner – management paid an amount of Rs.59,499/- towards gratuity. However, the period during which he worked on contingent basis, was not taken into consideration for payment of gratuity. Therefore, claiming that there was diﬀerence of an amount of Rs.18,862/- which is due to him and also for the interest for the delayed payment, he ﬁled I.A.No.1/99. The Controlling Authority partly allowed the claim of the employee for the diﬀerence of gratuity amount of Rs.18,862/- and disallowed the claim for interest. Aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority in awarding diﬀerence of gratuity amount, the management ﬁled appeal in Case No.PGA.16/22001 before the Appellate Authority under Section 7(7)of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad (TCs). Similarly aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, in disallowing the claim of the employee for interest, the employee – 3rd respondent herein, also ﬁled another appeal in PGA.No.8/2000. By order dated 15.4.2002 the Appellate authority rejected the appeal ﬁled by the management and allowed the appeal ﬁled by the employee. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. There is no dispute that the 3rd respondent herein was appointed as NMR and he joined duty on 13.3.1973 and thereafter he continued and appointed as Diary Attendant with eﬀect from 1.7.1975. The only requirement under Section 2 ( c ) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for payment of gratuity, is that the employee shall be in continuous service and it does not prevent the employee from claiming the gratuity for the period he worked on contingent basis. In the present case, the management while calculating the amount for payment of gratuity, has excluded the period from 13.3.1975 to 1.7.1975 during which he worked as contingent worker, on the ground that the said service was not regularized by the competent authority. As the Act does not prevent the employee from claiming gratuity during the period the employee worked on contingent basis, the Appellate Authority rightly allowed the claim of the employee and I do not ﬁnd any reason to interfere with the order of the appellate authority under the Act in this regard. 4. The other grievance of the petitioners is that the appellate authority awarded interest on the gratuity amount. From the material on record, it could be seen that the 3rd respondent – employee was retired from service on 31.3.1998 and the gratuity was paid on 16.3.1999, nearly after a lapse of one year from the date of retirement. Section 9(3) of the Act contemplates that the employer shall pay the gratuity within a period of thirty days from the date it becomes due. In the present case, the management has failed to pay the gratuity in spite of several representations made by the employee and no justiﬁable explanation was also oﬀered for the delayed payment. Therefore, the appellate authority, by considering these circumstances and also following the judgment of the Apex Court in VIJAY L.MOHROTRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [1], awarded interest on the gratuity amount for the delayed payment at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. In view of these facts and circumstances, I do not ﬁnd any reason to interfere with the same. 5. For the foregoing reasons, I do not ﬁnd any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS ---------------------------------- - 26 --09--2008 [1] 2000-II-LLJ