Gokul Chand Mittal, J. - (1.) In this writ petition two prayers were made, (1) for the payment of gratuity due to the petitioner and (2) for payment of interest on gratuity. Shri B.S. Sethi, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has admitted at the bar that his client has been paid gratuity due to him and on this count nothing remains in the writ petition and the dispute is now limited only to the interest on the amount of gratuity paid late.
(2.) As regards interest, the petitioner is obviously entitled to it from the date the gratuity became due to him till it was paid. Some incident is alleged to have occurred during the year 1970-71 on the basis of which some case was registered with the Vigilance Department. On 19.5.1978 a show cause notice was issued to which the petitioner gave a reply on 2.6.1978. While the matter was still pending, the petitioner retired on 30.9.1981 on reaching the age of superannuation. Since in spite of retirement and the fact that the incident was of 1970-71 and the show cause notice was issued on 9.4.1985 to seek recovery of the gratuity due to him and the interest thereon. During the pendency of the writ petition the charges against the petitioner were dropped and the enquiry was shelved by the Government itself. It is thereafter that on 7.4.1986 the gratuity was paid to the petitioner without interest. The aforesaid facts clearly go to show that the petitioner is not at fault. Whether the matter remained pending with one department or the other, the petitioner was only concerned with the gratuity to be paid to him forthwith on his retirement which is his legal right under the law. Accordingly, it is directed that the State Government would pay interest to the petitioner on the amount of gratuity paid to him with effect from two or three months, after retirement as the case may be, i.e., either from 1.12.1981 or latest by 1.1.1982, according to the rules till 7.5.1986 at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The writ petition is allowed with costs. Petition allowed.;