- (1.) The only question raised, in the instant intra-court appeal, for our consideration is, whether the appellantpettioner is entitled to interest in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, on the amount of gratuity after 30 days of his retirement as required under Section 7 (3A) of the Act of 1972?
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the skeltal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controvery raised are that the petitioner was appointed as Loan Supervisor vide order dated 15th November, 1976, in the pay scale of Rs. 120-240 and retired on 30th June, 2007, having attained the age of superannuation. The issue of status as an incumbent on the post of Loan Supervisor, was set at rest by the opinion of this Court in SBCWP No.4177/1993 (Smt. Mohari Devi v. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur & Anr) decided on 7th April, 1996 treating them to be employees of the Bank.
(3.) Indisputably, the status of the petitioner was that of an employee of the respondent-Bank, benefit of gratuity has also been accorded w.e.f 1st July, 1982, the fact of appointment of the appellant-petitioner w.e.f 15th November, 1985, until his retirement on 30th June, 2007 acquiring the age of superannuation, is also not in dispute. The learned Single Judge found the appellant-petitioner entitled for payment of gratuity for the period of service rendered by him since his appointment and made a direction for payment of gratuity to the appellant-petitioner.;