- (1.) SIMPLE case of the petitioner is that despite a clear direction to pay gratuity alongwith interest as contained in the order, dated 16th May, 1985, Annexure-2 to the writ petition passed by the Government of U. P. , no interest has been paid to the petitioner by the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner, therefore, seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest on the amount of gratuity as directed by the Government of U. P. vide letter dated 16-5-1985, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. We have carefully gone through the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of U. P. In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, it is averred that the direction to pay interest is nothing but a typogra phical mistake. The counter-affidavit does not show that any steps were ever taken by the respondents to get the mistake rectified. So long as the direction to pay the interest exists in the impugned order dated 16- 5-1985, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the writ petition, the petitioner will be entitled to the same. On these facts, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the interest as directed by respondent No. 1 itself vide letter dated 16-5-1985, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Unless the so-called mistake is rectified, respondent No. 1 cannot be permitted to raise a plea that direction to pay interest was nothing but a mistake,
(3.) THE petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. Respondents are directed to pay interest on the amount of gratuity which was illegally with held within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is presented to them by the petitioner. Petition allowed. .;