NALLAMADAN S D Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition has been filed praying to issue a writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pay interest at 12% p. a. on the gratuity sum of Rs. 4,650/- from October 1, 1976 till the date of payment.

(2.) THE first petitioner would narrate his case in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition to the effect that he got appointed as Sanitary Worker in the office of the first respondent on June 1, 1945 and after 31 years of service, he retired on September 30, 1976, that after retirement, he sought gratuity and much to his dismay, he was informed by the first respondent that no gratuity was payable to him; that he made an application dated September 20, 1990 to the Controlling Authority under Section 7 (4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act seeking gratuity along with interest for the belated payment, but the Controlling Authority dismissed the said application by his order dated February 21, 1991 on ground that it was not applicable to Local Bodies by G. O. Ms. No. 239 dated January 8, 1982; that he preferred an appeal to the second respondent against the order of the Controlling Authority on February 28, 1991 citing the decisions of the Apex Court and that of various other High Courts declaring that the Local Bodies were liable to pay gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act and that no separate Government Order was required for that purpose and the second respondent allowed the appeal and directed the first respondent to pay the gratuity amounting to Rs. 4,650/ -. But however, he failed to order payment of interest for the belated payment of gratuity; that since the delay was caused solely on account of the wrong stand adopted by the first respondent, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same; that the Supreme Court in its decision reported in State of Kerala v. Padmanaban (1985-I-LLJ-530) (SC) held that interest at 12% p. a. has to be paid by the employer for belated settlement of gratuity; that various High Courts have also taken the same view, that it is unreasonable on the part of the second respondent to have not awarded the interest, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the relevant provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and with the above contentions, the petitioner would pray for the relief sought for as stated supra.

(3.) DURING arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner besides confirming what has been pleaded in the writ petition would cite a recent judgment of the Apex Court delivered in Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U. P. and Anr. reported in (1999-I-LLJ-1335) (SC ). In the above judgment, dealing with the retiral benefits, the Supreme Court has held :