MUSTUFA YASINH Vs. DIST SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay all terminal benefits to the petitioner including arrears of pension, gratuity, provident fund etc.

(2.) THE petitioner was serving as Armed Force Police Constable in Surat (Rural) District. He applied on 7.10.1995 for premature retirement on the ground that he had put in about 27 years of service; by order dated 27.10.1995 his application was accepted; and he was ordered to retire voluntarily on 31.10.1995. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner submitted a representation on 9.7.1996 and thereafter on 13th August 1996 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Surat Division, Surat requesting for terminal benefits. However, as the terminal benefits were not paid the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) SHRI Supehia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that when the application of the petitioner was accepted and he was ordered to be retired voluntarily from 31.10.1995 the petitioner was entitled to gratuity amount as well as Provident Fund amount and other retiral benefits and the same were paid only in 1997, more particularly in the month of August 1997, and therefore it is requested to award interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits. He has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H. Gangahanume Gowda vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn.Ltd., reported in (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 40 and has submitted that the liability to pay gratuity is mandatory under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act and therefore interest on delayed payment of gratuity is mandatory and not discretionary if delay is not due to fault of the employee.