Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. - (1.) Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be disbursed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment.
(2.) The aforesaid mandate of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429 aptly and squarely applies to the factual matrix of the present case in which the appellant herein / petitioner has been denied the statutory interest payable on gratuity as incorporated and mandated by sub-section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act of 1972') on wholly untenable ground.
(3.) The essential facts shorn of all paraphernalia to judge the correctness of the plea raised at the Bar are as under:- 3.1 The appellant herein was superannuated on 31-7-2013 on attaining the age of superannuation by respondent No.1 herein - South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). His amount of gratuity was not paid leading to filing of an application by him before the jurisdictional controlling authority under the Act of 1972, under Section 7(1) of the Act of 1972 read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 (Form 'N') claiming the amount of gratuity along with interest and CPF amount stating inter alia that the respondent No.1 SECL has unauthorisedly detained the amount of gratuity which he is lawfully entitled for and therefore the respondent SECL be directed to make payment of the amount of gratuity along with interest. 3.2 The respondent SECL, after being noticed, appeared before the jurisdictional controlling authority and filed its written submission dated 14-10-2014 stating inter alia that though the appellant herein has superannuated from service on 31-7-2013 and he was required to obtain no dues certificate from the concerned department including the vacation of allotted official quarter, but he did not submit the same and the maximum permissible period of retention of the official quarter beyond the period of admissibility is three months and as such, he ought to have vacated the SECL quarter on 30-10-2013, which he did not vacate, and thereafter he is liable to pay penal rent for retention of SECL quarter unauthorisedly. It was the common stand of the respondent SECL before the controlling authority that simultaneously, the SECL has deposited the gratuity dues of 10,00,000/- before the controlling ? authority on 7-5-2014. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for interest on gratuity amount. 3.3 In rejoinder reply, the appellant submitted that there is no provision in the Act of 1972 or the Rules of 1972 for withholding of gratuity and the management - SECL has no power to withhold the gratuity for any reason whatsoever including non-vacation of SECL quarter and he has caused no loss to the Company. It was further submitted that SECL had not given any notice to the controlling authority under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act of 1972 or in Form 'M' under Rule 8 (1) (ii) of the Rules of 1972 informing and specifying the reasons why the claim of gratuity is not considered admissible, therefore, he is entitled for interest on the amount of gratuity. 3.4 The learned controlling authority by its order dated 23-12- 2015 held that though the appellant has served in the SECL for a total period of 35 years plus and retired on 31-7-2013, he failed to submit the no dues certificate particularly the quarter vacation certificate. The controlling authority further held that the SECL had deposited 10,00,000/- as gratuity and gratuity can be withheld ? only on the grounds mentioned in sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act of 1972. It has also been observed by the controlling authority that conduct of the appellant in holding back the possession of the quarter is not appreciable and acceptable and still that is not sufficient ground to deprive him of the right to gratuity. Thereafter, the controlling authority considered the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and another v. K. Balakrishna Nambiar (1998) 2 SCC 706 and also the decision of this Court passed in a Division Bench in W.A.No.384/ 2015 South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and others v. Raghuvansh Sharma, decided on 30-12-2015 in which it was held that since the appellant is continuing in possession of the allotted accommodation unauthorisedly and penal rent is due, the appellant is only entitled for the amount of gratuity already deposited on 28-10-2014 and accordingly, partly allowed the application for payment of gratuity, but declined to grant interest. However, liberty was granted to the respondent SECL to take recourse for eviction of premises and recovery of penal rent. 3.5 Feeling unhappy with the non-grant of interest in terms of sub-section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Act of 1972, the appellant laid an appeal before the appellate authority under the Act of 1972 claiming interest on the gratuity amount from the date it became due to him. The appellate authority considered the appeal and also considered various judgments cited by both the parties and confirmed the order of the controlling authority mainly and principally relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Balakrishna Nambiar's case (supra) and dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein. 3.6 Impugning the legality, validity and correctness of the order passed by the controlling authority duly affirmed by the appellate authority under the Act of 1972, the appellant herein filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court by its impugned order declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the writ court would not sit over the decision of the appellate authority as the finding recorded by the appellate authority is a plausible finding which cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to law warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3.7 Assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this intra-court appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 has been preferred by the appellant herein on the ground that the order passed by the writ court is contrary to Section 7 (3-A) of the Act of 1972. ;