- (1.) Before proceeding in the matter, the order passed on 17.1.2014 needs to be recorded which is reproduced hereinbelow:-- A supplementary show cause has been filed on behalf of the State on 28.11.2013 wherein it has been stated that Circular No. 3155 dated 7.11.1981 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as the circular in the light of Paragraph 1(b) is applicable in the case of payment of provisional pension to an employee who has been proceeded with the departmental proceeding. By drawing attention to the aforesaid statement, Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the matter pertains not only to the pension but even the payment of interest on account of delayed payment of the gratuity and, therefore, such statement made in the supplementary show cause will have no bearing upon the case of the petitioner. In this regard, it was further submitted that earlier a strange plea had been taken on behalf of the State that the said Circular No. 3155 dated 7.11.1981 is not applicable in the State of Jharkhand, as the same has been issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar but this Court vide its order passed on 17.10.2013 has categorically given the finding that the said Circular/Notification shall be applicable in the case of the employees of the State of Jharkhand. In spite of that, the interest on account of delayed payment of the amount of the gratuity has been calculated @ 3%, 3.5% and 4% per annum for different periods, though in terms of the notification, the petitioner would be entitled to have interest for whole of the period @ 5% per annum and moreover, even the amount of interest, which was calculated at the rate, stated above, which has been determined as Rs. 44,038.32 has not been paid. Since, it has already been observed that Circular No. 3155 dated 7.11.1981 is applicable in the case of the employees of the State of Jharkhand, it could not be denied that the petitioner is not entitled to have the interest @ 5% per annum. In spite of that, it appears from the calculated chart, which has been annexed, that for different period the interest, which has been allowed in the case of the petitioner, is @ 3%, 3.5% and 4% per annum. I fail to understand what could be the reason for passing such order with respect to payment of interest at the rate stated above, Let this matter be posted on 23.1.2014 so that explanation be given on that date for passing such order, whereas as per the stipulation made in Circular No. 3155 dated 7.11.1981, the petitioner is entitled to have the interest @ 5% per annum on account of delayed payment of the amount of the gratuity. Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned counsel for the State for needful. Pursuant to that order, a show cause has been filed wherein it has been stated that in similar situation, when the claim for payment of interest @ 5% was not given to one Naresh Kumar, he approached to the court but the court did not interfere with, rather directed the person to challenge the same. That cannot be said to be the justification for giving interest @ 3%, 3.5% and 4% per annum. The authority had been asked to explain about the justification and in place of giving justification, a plea has been taken that in a case of other person, this Court had not directed the authority to pay interest @ 5%.
(2.) This kind of plea is being taken simply to deny the rightful claim of the petitioner.
(3.) Earlier it had been held that the petitioner is entitled to have interest @ 5% on account of delayed payment of the amount of gratuity, in view of the Circular No. 3155 dated 7.11.1981 but the interest was not given @ 5% but the interest was give @ 3%, @ 3.5% and @ 4% per annum, for which no justification could be given before this Court.;