- (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner, in this writ application, has originally prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to pay him the Overtime Arrear, L.T.C. for the period 1988-1989 and refund of penal rent which was realized from the petitioner and further, to pay him interest on the total amount of Gratuity on account of the delayed payment. It appears that, as regards the claim for payment of interest on the total amount of Gratuity on account of the delayed payment, the petitioner had moved before the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The competent authority by his order dated-30.05.2007, dismissed the petitioner's claim for interest on the delayed payments of Gratuity. The petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the competent authority, has challenged the same, in this writ application. As regards the other claims, it is informed that the other grievances have been redressed during the pendency of this writ application.
(3.) The facts of the petitioner's case in brief are as follows: The petitioner was appointed under the Respondent-B.C.C.L. on 30.01.1965. After completing more than 40 years and three months of service, he superannuated on 28.02.2006 from the post of the Traffic Assistant in the Patherdih Coal Washery, Dhanbad of the Respondents-B.C.C.L. After his retirement, his retiral benefits including Gratuity was not paid to him promptly. It appears, however from the statements contained in the counter affidavit of the Respondents-B.C.C.L. that the amount of Gratuity payable to the petitioner, was sanctioned by the concerned authorities of the Respondents on 21/22.03.2006, but the same has not been paid to him promptly on the ground that he did not vacate the quarter alloted to him on his retirement and neither did he submit the 'No Dues Certificate'. It was only after the petitioner vacating the quarter on 02.05.2007, that a cheque for a total amount of Rs. 4,97, 113/- towards Gratuity was handed over to the petitioner on 04.05.2007. Such amount, however, did not include any interest. Claiming his right of interest on the principle amount of Gratuity on account of the delayed payment under the provisions of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the petitioner demanded statutory interest from the Respondents and when the same was refused to be paid, he preferred an application before the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The petitioner's claim for interest was, however, rejected by the competent authority by his impugned order.;