ARIJIT BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The material facts of the case are admitted and hence I have not called for affidavits. The petitioner was an Assistant Teacher of a Primary School and retired from service on 31.7.2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that the gratuity amount was disbursed to him only on 1.7.2014. He claims interest on the delayed payment of the gratuity amount.
(2.) It is now settled law that the gratuity amount is to be released to the retired/deceased employee immediately upon retirement/death. If there is a delay in releasing the gratuity amount, the retired employee is entitled to interest. Various orders have been passed by this Court holding that the retired employee is to receive interest on delayed payment of gratuity. Some of such orders have been placed before me.
(3.) Although the point of delay or limitation has not been urged on behalf of the State, I deem it appropriate to address that issue briefly. The Limitation Act in terms does not apply to writ petitions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Tarmen Singh reported in (2008)8 SCC 648 has observed that if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. It is settled law that the right of a retired employee to get his retiral dues on the date of attaining superannuation is a valuable right which accrues in his favour on the date of his attaining superannuation. Further, gratuity is no more considered to be a bounty to be handed out by the State at its whim. An employee has a right to receive gratuity upon retirement. If payment of such gratuity is delayed, the retired employee is surely entitled to get some interest for such delayed payment.;