- (1.) Heard learned Counsels for the parties. By this writ petition, the Petitioner who retired as Senior Manager from Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. on 31.10.2001, has claimed interest as prescribed in Sub-section (3A) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1972') for the period 1.11.2001 to 29.6.2002 when the said amount of gratuity of Rs, 3,50,000/- was paid to him vide letter dated 29.6.1992 (Annex. 2).
(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on the date of his retirement on 31.10.2001 itself the Petitioner was served with a charge sheet about supervisory negligence but after taking explanation from the Petitioner, the competent authority exonerated him vide Annex. 1 dated 3.6.2002 since the concerned In-charge of the distillery was some other person, namely, one Guman Chand Dayma, the then Deputy Manager and, therefore, the Petitioner could not be held liable for the alleged supervisory negligence. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, submitted that as per relevant provisions of Section 7(3) and (3A), the Petitioner was entitled to be paid interest at the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long term deposits as that has been specified by the Government by a notification; however, no such notification has been placed on record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was also unable to inform the rate of such interest, however, in the writ petition, the interest has been claimed @ 18% p.a. He further submitted that the Petitioner was also paid Leave Encashment amount of Rs. 64,735/- vide Annex. 3 dated 12.6.2002, however, there is no claim of interest on this amount of leave encashment. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the exoneration of the Petitioner from the alleged charge sheet of supervisory negligence by the competent authority vide Annex. 1 dated 3.6.2002, the entitlement of the Petitioner as to interest from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is actually paid cannot be disputed by the Respondent-Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., the employer.
(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent-employer vehemently opposed the writ petition by submitting that firstly the fate of the charge sheet served on the Petitioner on the date of his retirement on 31.10.2001 became clear only on 3.6.2002 when admittedly the Petitioner was exonerated from the said charge by the competent authority but for the period between 31.10.2001 to 3.6.2002, there was justifiable reason for the Respondent-employer not to pay said amount of gratuity and, therefore, the gratuity can be said to have fallen due for payment only on 3.6.2002 when he was exonerated. He further submitted that since the Petitioner was paid the gratuity immediately thereafter to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- on 29.6.2002 within stipulated period of thirty days as given in Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act of 1972, therefore, there is no question of payment of any interest to the Petitioner. He also submitted that there was a requirement on the part of Petitioner also to apply for the said payment of gratuity within thirty days, which could be withheld on the aforesaid justifiable grounds, and if the Petitioner was aggrieved of any delayed payment of gratuity, or non-payment at the relevant point, he could approach the appellate authority under Rule 18 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972. In such circumstances, the Petitioner had alternative remedy available to him and the writ petition is not maintainable.;