R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties finally.
(2.) MRS . M.M. Pal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as per the judgment dated 18.1.2003, passed by the District Judge, in appeal, petitioner is entitled to interest on gratuity from the date of retirement i.e. 31.1.1996 till it is paid, as it was withheld wrongly by the respondents, but the District Judge wrongly held in his order dated 24.5.2006 that petitioner in entitled to interest accrued in Bank. She further submitted that petitioner is ready to pay the amounts as calculated by the respondents in letter dated 28.9.2007 (Annexure -I -A) except Rs. 20,662.66p charged as "16% simple interest per annum on damage mentioned at serial No. 2", which will come to Rs. 95,539.84p. She admitted that petitioner cannot claim the arrears of difference of salary etc. On the other hand, Mr. Rohit Roy, appearing for the respondents - Management, submitted that petitioner is entitled to the interest accrued in Bank, Deposit.
(3.) PETITIONER took VRS with effect from 31.1.1996. By letter dated 7.2.1996 (Annexure -1), on his request he was allowed to retain the quarter for two years i.e. up to 31.1.1998 on the condition that the gratuity amount will be released only after he vacates the quarter, and the same will be deposited in the Bank. Alter expiry of the said period, petitioner did not vacate the quarter. The amount of gratuity with interest accrued thereon had to be transferred and kept in current account. Petitioner was repeatedly asked to vacate the quarter and receive his amount of gratuity along with interest accrued thereon. Ultimately, the Management had to file an eviction case under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 on 28.12.2000 in the Court of Estate Officer. After hearing the parties by judgment dated 15.3.2002, petitioner was asked to vacate the quarter, on finding that he was in unauthorised occupation with effect from 1.2.1998. He was also directed to pay the charges @ Rs. 228 per month, a conservancy charges @ Rs. 1, electricity charges and other charges per month with effect from 1.2.1998 with simple interest @ 16% per annum. Petitioner filed appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 25/2002 in the Court of Additional District Judge, IVth, Bokaro, which was disposed of after hearing the parties on 18.1.2003. The judgment of the Estate Officer was affirmed but modified to the extent that Management will pay the gratuity of Rs. 1 lac with interest accrued thereon by way of Bank deposit" and the petitioner will vacate the quarter within 15 days from the date of receiving the said amount after deduction of rent and other charges of the quarter. The Management accordingly calculated the amount as Rs. 49,830.60 and sent a cheque with a letter dated 29.11.2003, but the petitioner returned it by saying that in absence of calculation, he was not obliged to vacate the quarter. In spite of repeated written requests, petitioner refused to vacate the quarter on the ground that the said amount was not calculated as per the judgment dated 18.1.2003, passed in the said Misc. Appeal. It may be noted here that petitioner did not offer his calculation to show that the amount offered by the Management was wrongly calculated. The Management then had to file a Misc. Case being Civil Misc. Case No. 10 of 2006 in the Court of District Judge, for directing the petitioner to vacate the quarter. Petitioner contended the amount offered by the Management was not as per the judgment dated 18.1.2003. The said Misc. Case was disposed of after hearing the parties on 24.5.2006. The District Judge held that the amount of gratuity was kept in the Bank for two years as per the request of the petitioner, which earned interest of Rs. 6,903/ - and thereafter the total amount of Rs. 1,06,903/ - was deposited in the current account expecting that petitioner will vacate the quarter. He further found that the judgment dated 18.1.2003 was for payment of interest accrued on the gratuity by way of Bank deposit and not for payment of interest which might have accrued for withholding the amount, and therefore the petitioner cannot be paid Bank interest as claimed by him. Thus, it held that the petitioner was entitled to Rs. 1,06,903/ -. However it held that interest @ 16% as claimed by the Management is not payable by the petitioner.;