- (1.) The short facts of the case are as follows: The affidavit of service filed be kept with the records. The petitioner was a Primary Teacher in the concerned School under the respondents, Education Department and he retired from service with effect from28.02.2013. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities issued Pension Payment Order (PPO) on 22.05.2014 and the gratuity amount was received on 20.08.2014. As such, respondent authorities have delayed to pay the gratuity amount.
(2.) The learned Advocate further submits that his client approached the respondent authorities to claim interest on the delayed payment of gratuity amount but they have not considered the same. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ-petition seeking the relief to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the gratuity amount. He further submits that his client rendered long service with the respondent authorities in the concerned school without any break and without any adverse remark. The learned Advocate also cited two decisions, one of which (Atul Chandra Mahata -Vs- State of Ors, 2004 1 CalLJ 191) and another decision (S.K. Dua Vs- State of Haryana and Anr, 2008 3 SCC 44).
(3.) The Learned Advocate further submits that as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, amount has to be paid to the petitioner within a period of 45 days but the same has not been complied with. Hence, this writ petition is filed before this Court for direction upon the respondents and the Education Department to pay the interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity amount. Learned Advocate for the Sate admitted that the petitioner has served the concerned school for a long period and has retired from service on the state as mentioned above. It is further submitted that the delay is not deliberate one but due to legal formalities and administrative process and as such the petitioner is not entitled to receive interest on the gratuity amount.;