Whether government is liable to pay interest if there is delay in payment of gratuity?

 The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner

the amount of gratuity of Rs.10 lakhs within a period of

10 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Since the petitioner superannuated on 14.06.2013 and

the amount of gratuity has been wrongfully withheld by

the respondents, the petitioner shall be entitled to

interest at the rate of 9% from the date of his

superannuation till the date of actual payment. {Para 10}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4452 of 2019

ASHVINKUMAR RAMNIKLAL JANI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

Date : 19/04/2022

Print Page

Whether government servant is entitled to get interest if payment of gratuity is delayed beyond his retirement?

 As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.K. Singla (supra), consequent upon the acquittal of an employee, it would be erroneous to conclude that the gratuity payable to such employee on attaining the age of superannuation was withheld on account of some fault of the employee himself. In the present case, it is not as if the petitioner, was ultimately convicted in criminal prosecution launched against him, in which case, the petitioner, could have been held to be at fault. Therefore, applying the principle explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.K. Singla (supra), we hold that the delay in payment of gratuity to the petitioner beyond three months from the date of retirement was for no fault of the petitioner. In terms of Rule 129A of the MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982, read with clause 3 of the GR dated 6th May 1991 therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be paid interest for the period of delay beyond three months from the date of first retirement i.e. with effect from 1st July 1997.

35. In Prabhakar Dalal (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, in the context of Rules 129A, 130 (1)(c) of the MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982 and GR dated 23rd June 1986 has held that paragraph 3 of the GR will have to be construed to mean that on a person against whom disciplinary or judicial proceedings were pending, if he is discharged or the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that no punishment needs to be imposed and in case of judicial authority, such authority acquits such person, than in those cases, on the competent authority authorising the release of gratuity, it will be presumed that the gratuity is deemed to have been fallen due on the date immediately following the date of retirement for the purpose of interest. The Division Bench has commended harmonious construction of the statutory rules and the executive instructions in the GR, so that executive instructions would not fall foul of the rules.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 12966 of 2017

Decided On: 03.04.2018

 Vinodkumar Narayan Dixit Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.K. Tahilramani, Actg. C.J. and M.S. Sonak, J.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 696

Print Page