JETHABHAI JIVABHAI SOLANKI Vs. COMMISSIONER - TECHNICAL AND EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claim of the petitioner in this petition is to grant interest @ 18% on the delayed payment of gratuity amount.

(2.) AS stated in the petition the petitioner retired on 31st July 2009 on reaching the age of superannuation. However, after the petitioner retired, on 5th April 2010 a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. In such departmental inquiry the petitioner was exonerated on 13th May 2011. It is stated by the petitioner that thereafter on 16th July 2011 the petitioner was paid gratuity along with other retiral benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that for no good reason and for no fault of the petitioner the payment of gratuity was delayed. The petition is opposed by the affidavitinreply filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 mainly stating that due to pending departmental inquiry the gratuity amount of the petitioner was not released. It is further stated that the petitioner had approached the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act but thereafter since that authority had no jurisdiction the petitioner has filed the present petition. However, since the petitioner was paid gratuity on 16th July 2011 the petitioner cannot be made entitled to interest on such delayed payment of gratuity. It is also stated that even if the petitioner is entitled for interest on delayed payment of interest, the petitioner could be paid interest @ 6% as per the Government Resolution and not @18% as claimed by the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard learned advocates for the parties. Learned advocate Mr. Thakker submitted that in fact when the petitioner retired from service no departmental inquiry was pending against him. Mr. Thakker further submitted that after nearly a period of one year the departmental inquiry was initiated against him, wherein also the petitioner was exonerated. Mr. Thakker submitted that the delay in making payment was not on account of fault of the petitioner but the department on its own decided not to release the gratuity simply because the departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Mr.Thakker, therefore urged that the petitioner is entitled to interest @ 18% on delayed payment of gratuity.