IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR SRI JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 6190 OF 20?? Contempt Case filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to be pleased to punish for their wilfully and deliberately disobeying the Orders dated passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.34888 of 2011 Between: respondents herein 06-05-2022 G.Ayyavaraiah, S/o.Late Subbaiah Srinivasa Colony, Hyderabad. aged 71 years, R/o.8-3-214-8 ...Petitioner/Petitioner AND Sri Rakesh Kashyap, Chairman, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Dhobi Ghat Road, P.B No.65, Near Mariyapuram Church Club, Kadapa-516001. Bank, Opp: Officers ...Respondent (in WP No.34888 of 2011) lA NO: 2 QF 2074 Petition filed under Section 16-A of Writ Rules circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i High Court may be pleased to implead the Proposed herein as party Respondent No.2 in C.C.No.6190/2022. praying that in the in support of the petition, the Respondent No.2 TiJ ! :Ms Sodum Anvesha Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondent :Ms V Uma Devi The Court made the following: Order A- m COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH at AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) APHC010687252022 IN THE HIGH [3310] 0#0 twenty FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO FRIDAY ,THE TWO the honourable dr r.nNTEMPT CASE NO: 6190/2022 * Between: G Ayyavaraiah ...PETITIONER AND ...CONTEMNOR Rakesh Kashyap Counsel for the Petitioner: I.SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Contemnor: 1.V UMA DEVI Court made the following Order: The the respondent under Sections 10 the orders of this Court Contempt Case is filed to punish of Courts Act for not implementing The to 12 of Contempt dated 06.05.2022 passed in W.P.No.34888 of 2011. This Court , vide order, dated 06.05.2022. has passed the final 2. order and the operative portion reads as follows: „e prolleX* in SS ■■r\ 2 22.07.2011 issued by the respondent Bank. Further, the respondent Bank is directed to pay the gratuity to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ” 3. Heard Ms.Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.V.Lima Devi, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though this Court has directed the respondent-bank to pay gratuity to the petitioner, the respondent-bank without complying with the order of this Court has filed Writ Appeal No.720 of 2022 and the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court dated 28.12.2023. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that. when the writ appeal filed by the respondent is pending before a Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner has filed the present Contempt Case and this Court, vide order, dated 12.01.2024 directed the Bank to pay the Gratuity to the petitioner in accordance with the provisionsof Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. In due compliance, the respondent-bank paid the eligible Gratuity amount of Rs.6,03,809/- to the petitioner vide D.D.No.016848, dated 21.02.2024 payable at Tirupati, receipt of which was duly acknowledged by the petitioner.She further submits that the petitioner was not eligible for payment of Gratuity and there was no deliberate delay or fault on the part of the respondent-bank in non-payment of gratuity to the petitioner, but was 1 3 of the Staff Service Regulations authorities, under due of interest on Gratuity of applicable approved by the concerned the question of payment decided strictly in terms respondent-bank, duly notice to the petitioner, amount does not arise. hence submits that the learned counsel for the petitioner In reply 6. but npt paid the interest paid only gratuity amount further submits that the respondent-bank has amount to the petitioner. She respondent-bank had and hence, the the stipulated time delayed payment of gratuity. amount within not paid the gratuity respondent-bank is liable to pay interest on the counsel has placed reliance Court reported Corporation , learned Hon’ble Supreme 7. To support her contentions of the in the decision upon H.GangahanumeGowda Industries Karnataka Agro Court held as follows. vs Limited^ wherein the Hon’ble Apex , o^er to appreciate extracted below:- -7 Detero.ir.aton of tto arootot of gratae 'in TX tto cc„,r-to aettority apec,« r;?,orer^rp&" (2) whether an ^2003) 3 see 40 the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground. 8. Recovery of gratuity If the amount of gratuity payable under this Act is not paid by the employer, within the prescribed time, to the person entitled thereto, the controlling authority shall, on an application made to it in this behalf by the aggrieved person, issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall recover the same, together with compound interest thereon at such rate as the Central Government may, by notification, specify, from the date of expiry of the prescribed time as arrears of land revenue and pay the same to the person entitled thereto; Provided that the controlling authority shall, before issuing a certificate under this section, give the employer a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the issue of such certificate. Provided further that the amount of interest payable under this section shall, in no case exceed the amount of gratuity payable under this Act" 7. It is evident from Section 7(2) that as soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer, whether any application has been made or not, is obliged to determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity. Under Section 7(3), the employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable. Under sub- section 3(A) of Section 7, if the amount of gratuity is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), he shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date which it is paid, simple interest at such rate not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long term deposits; provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on that ground. From the provisions made in Section 7, a clear command can be seen mandating the employer to pay the gratuity within the specified time and to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. No discretion is available to exempt or relieve the employer from payment of gratuity with without interest as the case may be. However, under the proviso to Section 7(3A), no interest shall be payable if delay in payment of gratuity is due to the fault of the employee and further condition that the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on that ground. Under Section 8. provision is made for recovery of gratuity payable under the Act, If not paid by the employer within the prescribed time. on or I 1 ( ) on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and that, while disposing of the 8. upon perusing the material on record, it appears vide W.P.No.34888 of 2011, dated 06.05.2022, this Court has the gratuity to the petitioner, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, within a respondent-bank without complying with the Writ Appeal vide W.A.No.720 of 2022 Bench of this Court on 28.12.2023. writ petition directed the respondent-bank to pay accordance with the provisions of the period of eight (08) weeks. But the the order of this Court, has preferred in and the same was dismissed by a Division Thereafter, the respondent-bank has Court observed that, there is deiay ih payment of gratuity amount paid the gratuity amount on 21.02.2024. Hence, this to the petitioner. additional amount charged on top of the Admittedly, Interest is the a penalty for delayed payment. In the cohtext of gratuity 9. / principal amount as payment, interest applies when an employee fails to make the payment within \ is calculated on a monthly basis time frame. Further, the interest is the specified from the due date of payment until the date employer fails to make the date of exit, they will be liable to pay an amount calculated on a monthly basis from the 31 of actual payment. For example, if gratuity payment within thirty (30) days from the interest of 8% per annum on the an day until the date of actual payment. 1 ( / ' 6 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for interest on delayed payment of gratuity. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Contempt Case, directing the respondent- bank to pay the interest amount of 8% per annum from the due date of actual payment to till the date of payment, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the above observations, the Contempt Case is disposed of. No costs. 12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- V DIWAKAR deputy REGISTRAR \ //true copy// s ON OFFICER ’ 1“:; 2. One CC to Sri Sodum Anvesha Advocate 3. One CC to Sri V Uma 4. Three CD Copies To, fOPUCJ Devi Advocate [OPUCj BSV HIGH COURT 1 DATED: 24/01/2025 \ y- ORDER ./o° 15 FEB 2025 CC.No.6190 of 2022 IS . Current aeciion . DISPOSING OF THE CONTEMPT CASE WITH DIRECTION WITHOUT COSTS