Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3987 (HP)

Shramja Munjal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-12-15

Sandeep Sharma

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Since common questions of facts as well as law are involved in both the above-captioned cases, this Court heard them together and the same are now being disposed of vide common judgment. 2. Relevant facts, which are otherwise common in both the cases, are that on 20.08.1987 and 17.08.1988, petitioners were appointed as Lecturer (Botany) and Lecturer (Chemistry), respectively, in respondent No.3/College, which was receiving Grant-in-Aid from the respondent State. In the year 1994, respondent No.3/College came within the purview of Himachal Pradesh Non-Government affiliated Colleges Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1994, as a result thereof, staff of respondent No.3/College started receiving 95% Grant-in-Aid, as a result thereof, their pay scales were brought at par with those of the teaching staff in Government colleges. On 09.09.2010, a notification was issued by respondent No.1, thereby revising the pay scale of teaching staff of the Government aided colleges on the pattern of Government colleges. Besides above, the designation of the Lecturers of different grades was also changed as Assistant Professors/ Associate Professors. Vide office order dated 01.03.2011 issued by respondent No.2, pay scale of 25 Lecturers/Associate Professors of respondent No.3-College was fixed in the Revised Pay Structure of Rs.37,400-67,000/- (Revised Pay Scale) + Rs.9,000/- (AGP). Petitioners also got benefit of aforesaid office order. 3. On 12.05.2016, representation was preferred by the President of teaching faculty of respondent No.3-College to respondent No.4, requesting therein to grant the benefit of enhanced earned leave, i.e. from 10 days to 15 days and 20 days. On 19.08.2016, communication was sent by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3, stating therein that the matter with regard to enhanced earned leave was discussed in the meeting of Executive Counsel held on 30.05.2016 and it was decided that the earned leave may be granted to the teaching staff of respondent No.3 as per the rules of the Department of Education, Government of Himachal Pradesh. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision taken by the respondent University, recommendations were made by the Director of Higher Education, vide communication dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-8) to the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to enhance the earned leave of the teaching staff of Grant-in-Aid (GIA) Colleges at par with the teaching staff of Government Colleges, i.e. 20 days in a calendar year. 4. 4. Vide communication dated 11.08.2022, respondent No.4- University issued a notification, notifying therein that on the basis of recommendations of the Executive Council, earned leave of the teaching staff in Grant-in-Aid Colleges including respondent No.3, is enhanced to 20 days w.e.f the year 2022. However, aforesaid communication was subsequently amended vide notification dated 25.09.2023 (Annexure P-12) issued by the Registrar of Himachal Pradesh University, thereby extending aforesaid benefit of 20 days earned leave w.e.f August, 2016. 5. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, who have rendered more than 36 and 32 years of service, is that they ought to have been paid gratuity in terms of provisions contained in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as applicable to the employees of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Besides above, petitioners herein are also claiming benefit of notifications dated 11.08.2022 and 25.09.2023, whereby the benefit of earned leave to the extent of 20 days came to be extended to the Government aided colleges w.e.f August, 2016. Since the petitioners were very much on the rolls at the time of issuance of the aforesaid notifications, they are claiming the benefit of earned leave to the extent of 20 days per annum. Though in the instant case, petitioners have been paid gratuity, but to the extent of Rs.7,00,000/- against total liability of Rs.10,00,000/-, as is evident from Annexure R-8 annexed with the reply filed by respondent No.3/College. Though as per aforesaid document, total amount of gratuity payable to the petitioners is Rs.10,00,000/-, but Rs.7,00,000/- has been paid by the State of Himachal Pradesh and Rs.50,000/- by respondent No.3/College. Now, since sum of Rs.10,00,000/- payable on account of gratuity has been further enhanced to Rs.20,00,000/-, as is evident from the Office Memorandum dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure P-6), petitioner namely Smt. Shramja Munjal is claiming gratuity to the extent of Rs.20,00,000/- w.e.f 01.01.2016. Since aforesaid claim of the petitioner namely Smt. Shramja Munjal has not been considered favourably by the respondents, she has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinbelow:- “a. That respondents No.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to release/grant its share to the extent of 95% towards the amount of leave encashment on account of increased/enhanced earned leave of 20 days in a calender days w.e.f August, 2016 till the superannuation of the petitioner, i.e. October, 2022/ March, 2023, forthwith. Likewise respondent No.3-College may also be directed to release its share to the extent of 5% towards the payment of increased/enhanced earned leave. b. That respondents No.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to release/grant its share to the extent of 95% towards the remaining amount of gratuity, as revised vide office memorandum dated 25.02.2022, forthwith. Respondent No.3-College may also be directed to release and pay its share to the extent of 5% towards the balance payment revised gratuity in favour of the petitioner. c. That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay statutory interest to the petitioner on the delayed payment of balance amount of Gratuity and interest @ 9% per annum on the outstanding amount of Leave Encashment, within a period of one month.” 6. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, all the respondents have filed reply(s). Though respondents-State have fairly acknowledged factum with regard to petitioners having worked as Associate Professors in respondent No.3/College w.e.f 1987 and 1988, respectively, till their superannuation on 31.03.2023 and 30.06.2020, but claim as put forth by the petitioners has been refuted on the ground that petitioners are not Government Employees, rather they are employees of respondent No.3/College. Though on the one hand, claim of the petitioners for gratuity has been refuted, but at the same time, it has been stated that sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as admissible to the petitioners has already been paid by the respondents, whereas remaining amount is to be paid by respondent No.3. Similarly, claim of the petitioners with regard to leave encashment has also been refuted on the ground that as per provisions contained in CCS Leave Rules, 1972, the same applies only to regular employees of Government of Himachal Pradesh. Since the CCS Leave Rules, 1972, are not applicable to Government aided institutions, there is no fault in the classification of the petitioners with respect to the category of Government employees. Besides above, it has been further stated that notification, if any, issued by respondent No.4/University, thereby bringing employees of Government aided college within the ambit of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is not binding upon the State Government. 7. Besides above, it has been further stated that notification, if any, issued by respondent No.4/University, thereby bringing employees of Government aided college within the ambit of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is not binding upon the State Government. 7. Reply filed by respondent No.3, if perused in its entirety, clearly supports the case of the petitioners, wherein it has been stated that amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- is to be paid by the respondents-State because 95% Grant-in-Aid is provided by the respondents-State and liability, if any, of respondent No.3 is to the extent of 5%. It has been further stated in the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3/college that in terms of notification dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure P-6), petitioners are also entitled to gratuity to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- instead of Rs.10,00,000/-. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that respondent No.3/College had been receiving Grant-in-Aid from the respondents-State, as a consequence thereof, petitioners along with other similarly situate persons working in respondent No.3/College were in receipt of pay scale as were applicable to the teaching staff in Government Colleges. Though on one hand, it has been claimed that petitioners are not entitled to any gratuity on account of their being employees of respondent No.3/College, but it is not in dispute that sum of Rs.7,00,000/- received as gratuity by the petitioners has been paid by the respondent/State. If the reply filed by the respondents/State is perused in its entirety, their entire case is that though petitioners were in receipt of Grant-in-Aid, but cannot be termed as Government employees, rather for all intents and purposes, they are employees of respondent No.3/College, as such, liability, if any, to pay amount on account of gratuity and leave encashment rests with respondent No.3/College. 9. The question that whether petitioners, who admittedly worked in respondent No.3/College for 36 and 32 years, respectively, can be said to be Government employees or not has already been decided by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6807 of 2014, titled as Jamila Khan Vs. State of H.P & others, decided on 20.11.2014. 9. The question that whether petitioners, who admittedly worked in respondent No.3/College for 36 and 32 years, respectively, can be said to be Government employees or not has already been decided by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6807 of 2014, titled as Jamila Khan Vs. State of H.P & others, decided on 20.11.2014. In afore case, though Division Bench of this Court was primarily deciding the issue of entitlement of teachers teaching in the Government aided schools/colleges to gratuity, but, while finding answer to aforesaid question it specifically arrived at a conclusion that teachers teaching in Government aided college are Government employees for all intents and purposes, and as such, are entitled to gratuity in terms of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Relevant paras of the afore judgment are extracted hereinbelow:- 3. The Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh has enacted the Act to provide for the security of services to the employees of the aided Colleges in the State of Himachal Pradesh known as The Himachal Pradesh Aided Colleges (Security of Services of Employees) Act, 1994 (in short “the Act”). Section 2(a) of the Act defines the “aided College” or “College” to mean College affiliated to and admitted to the privileges of a University and receiving financial assistance not less than fifty per centum of the salary component for both teaching and non-teaching staff from the State Government. Section 3 of the Act lays down the minimum qualifications for recruitment of various classes of the employees of a College. The method of recruitment is provided under Section 4 of the Act. Section 6 provides that the scales of pay and other allowances and privileges of the employees of a College shall be such as may, from time to time, as specified by the State Government. Section 13 lays down the procedure for payment of salaries. Section 21 empowers the State Government to frame rules by way of notification. The State Government has also notified on 16.3.2008, The Himachal Pradesh Non-Government College Grant-in-aid Rules, 2008. The object of the grant, as per Rule 3, is to financially assist nonGovernment Colleges teaching in Arts, Commerce and Science subjects at under Graduate levels, till they become self-reliant. According to Rule 4, grant- in-aid is admissible for meeting, a part of the salary expenses, in respect of approved staff (teaching & non-teaching). The object of the grant, as per Rule 3, is to financially assist nonGovernment Colleges teaching in Arts, Commerce and Science subjects at under Graduate levels, till they become self-reliant. According to Rule 4, grant- in-aid is admissible for meeting, a part of the salary expenses, in respect of approved staff (teaching & non-teaching). However, grant-in- aid to a College should not exceed 50% of the revenue gap (total expenditure on salary of approved teaching and non-teaching staff minus the total income from all sources). The actual amount of grant-in- aid is dependent upon the availability of resources and budgetary allocation with the Government for this purpose. Rule 5 lays down the eligibility criteria. Rule 7 provides for equitable distribution in case of insufficiency of funds. Rule 13 lays down that where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may relax any of the provisions of these rules. By way of amendment notified on 6.10.2009, after first proviso, the following proviso was inserted in Rule 4: “Provided further that colleges which were getting Grant-in-aid under the Himachal Pradesh Non-Government Affiliated Colleges Grant-in-aid Rules, 1994 shall be provided Grant-in- aid only for those teaching and non-teaching staff for whom Grant-in-aid was being provided prior to notification of Himachal Pradesh Grant-inaid to non-Government Colleges Rules, 2008 and the amount of annual Grant-in-aid to these colleges shall be restricted up to the amount of annual Grant-in- aid provided against each of these teaching and non-teaching staff in these colleges prior to 31.3.2008. On accrual of any incremental and other benefits after 31.3.2008, no additional Grant-in-aid shall be provided to these colleges. Further, the Grant-in-aid shall be reduced as and when the staff gets retired. Provided further that the Grant-in-aid shall be provided w.e.f. 1.4.2008”. 4. The respondent No. 2 though is duly served, however, there is no representation on its behalf. The stand of the respondent-State as per the reply is that the petitioner’s husband was not a government servant. His case was not covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The employees of 95% aided institutions would not fall within the category of the Government. It is also averred in the reply that the role of the State is confined to release financial assistance in the form of GIA only towards part of salary component as provided in the GIA Rules. The employees of 95% aided institutions would not fall within the category of the Government. It is also averred in the reply that the role of the State is confined to release financial assistance in the form of GIA only towards part of salary component as provided in the GIA Rules. It is also averred that the gratuity and leave encashment applicable to the petitioner and other employees of nonGovernment affiliated colleges whether aided or non-aided is to be released as per the Ist Ordinance of 1973 Appendix-“A” Chapter XXXVIII para 38.5B(d). 5. Appendix “A” of Ist Ordinance, 1973 talks of teachers and not the non-teaching staff. The petitioner’s husband has served respondent No. 2- College for almost 35 years as Mali. The petitioner has been informed of the entitlement towards leave encashment and gratuity. However, the fact of the matter is that till date, neither gratuity nor leave encashment has been released in favour of the husband of the petitioner. The Himachal Pradesh Aided Colleges (Security of Services of Employees) Act, 1994, only lays down as per Section 6 that the scales of pay and other allowances and privileges of the employees of a College shall be such as may from time to time, be specified by the State Government. It is not clear from the language employed in Section 6 of the Act that whether the gratuity was intended to be included herein or not. 16. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shri Agarwal Shiksha Samiti and Another vrs. Moti Chand Jain and Others reported in 2009-II-LLJ 616 (Raj), has held that non- governmental educational institutions were bound to pay gratuity to its employees. It has been held as under: “[2] All these appeals arise from a common order of learned Single judge whereby, the appellant Samiti was directed to make payment of gratuity to the respondents along with interest. The order does not call for interference in view of the ratio indicated in Children Garden Play School Education Society v. Raj Nan Government Educational Institutions Tribunal and Ors.,2008 3 WLC(Raj) 147 wherein, the Division Bench of this Court held that non-government educational institutions are bouna to pay gratuity to the employees worked with them since gratuity is a benefit arising from past service and meant for relief and assistance after retirement or cessation of employment.” 17. The employees of respondent No. 2-College are also doing yeomen’s service in educational field. The conditions for the service of teaching and non-teaching staff must be humane and the endeavour should be made by the State Government that the teachers and non- teaching staff of Government Aided Colleges/Schools are treated at par with teachers and nonteaching staff of Government Colleges/Schools. The teachers in private Aided Colleges are appointed as per the Ordinance framed by the University and they are also supposed to fulfill the minimum educational qualification criteria, as laid down under the UGC norms. The petitioner’s husband was also entitled to leave encashment. The expression salary in the grant-in-aid clause would also cover leave encashment. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No. 2- College is directed to release the gratuity to the petitioner, strictly as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 within ten weeks from today. The respondent No. 1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 19,811/- to the petitioner towards leave encashment, if necessary by relaxing the Rules under Rule 13 of the Himachal Pradesh Non- Government College Grant-in-aid Rules, 2008 within six weeks. It is made clear that the amount paid towards the leave encashment can be adjusted by the respondent No. 1-State while releasing grant-in-aid to respondent No. 2-College. The respondent-State is also directed to consider making comprehensive rules/ guidelines for the retiral benefits of the Government aided Colleges/Institutions. 10. Recently the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.19436 of 2024, titled as Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade Vs. The Headmistress Girls High School and Junior College, Anji (mothi), Tan. And Distt. Wardha & Ors., held that aided school teachers are governed by the service conditions under the State Government. Aforesaid finding came to be recorded by Hon’ble Apex Court in the background that Rules of 1982 framed by the State of Maharashtra under Payment of Gratuity Act are more beneficial than provisions contained in the Gratuity Act, 1972. Relevant paras of the afore judgment are extracted hereinbelow:- “6. On the question of the teacher’s entitlement to the provisions of the Gratuity Act, it has to be held that the decision in Birla Institute of Technology2 puts to rest any such controversy. Relevant paras of the afore judgment are extracted hereinbelow:- “6. On the question of the teacher’s entitlement to the provisions of the Gratuity Act, it has to be held that the decision in Birla Institute of Technology2 puts to rest any such controversy. The question here would be not so much the entitlement to gratuity but as to whether the legal heirs of a deceased teacher in an aided school would be entitled to gratuity under the Act of 1972 or under the Rules of 1982. The argument of the State is that an aided school employee, including a teacher would be exempted from the definition of an employee under the Act. Per contra it is argued that the exemption is only to a person who holds a post under the Central Government or State Government. An aided school teacher does not hold a post under the State Government contends the appellant. 7. It must be observed that a teacher in an aided school for all practical purposes is akin to a post under the State Government. Pertinent is the fact that the posts in aided schools are either sanctioned by the Government or approved in accordance with the Rules and pay and allowances are also paid by the Government. The aided school teachers are also entitled to some of the conditions of service as are applicable to Government teachers, with entitlement of pension, provident fund and gratuity as applicable, in accordance with the Rules brought out under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Though strictly speaking the teachers may not be holding a post under the State Government, it is akin to a post under the State Government, at least for the monetary benefits of pay and allowances, while in service, as also pension and other benefits on retirement. 8. We have to also notice that sub-section (5) makes Section 4 inapplicable, if the employees have a right to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with an employer. When comparing the benefits, the question is not to be considered in isolation with respect to an employee and whether he or she would be entitled to higher amounts under the Act or under the Rules. The scheme has to be considered in toto for the purpose of determining as to which is more beneficial. When comparing the benefits, the question is not to be considered in isolation with respect to an employee and whether he or she would be entitled to higher amounts under the Act or under the Rules. The scheme has to be considered in toto for the purpose of determining as to which is more beneficial. The Act of 1972 prescribes under Section 4(2), gratuity at the rate of 15 days wages based on the last wages drawn for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months. Insofar as the Rules of 1982 is concerned, gratuity is payable equal to ¼th of last pay drawn of each completed six monthly period of qualifying service, subject to a maximum of 16 and a half years. It has to be noticed that the payment of gratuity as per the Act of 1972 is payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after rendering continuous service for not less than five years; the minimum limit of five years being not applicable only when the termination is due to death or disablement. While DCRG under the Rules of 1982 is payable to the Government employee, at any time his services cease without the minimum limit of five years-service. Further, on death prior to the minimum period, the gratuity payable under the Rules of 1982 is far more than that applicable under the Act of 1972, which is as hereunder: Completed Year of Qualifying Service Death Gratuity 1 ... 2½ months’ pay 2 ... 5 months’ pay 3 ... 7½ months’ pay 4 ... 10 months’ pay 9. A person entering service though has a normal expectation of retiring on attaining the age of superannuation but there are vagaries of fate which would make it otherwise. We have already seen that on death prior to five years of service the benefits under the Rules of 1982 would be more beneficial to the dependents of the employees. Further it must be noticed that the Government servants including the teachers in the Government schools would be entitled to gratuity under the Rules of 1982 and there cannot be a situation where the teachers of aided schools are entitled to a different computation of gratuity under the Act of 1972. Further it must be noticed that the Government servants including the teachers in the Government schools would be entitled to gratuity under the Rules of 1982 and there cannot be a situation where the teachers of aided schools are entitled to a different computation of gratuity under the Act of 1972. It is also to be emphasised that the Rules of 1982 enables not only DCRG but also pension to the employees covered under the Rules of 1982, which a person entitled to the gratuity under the Act of 1972 may not be entitled in all circumstances. 10. We are of the opinion that the aided school teachers who are governed by the service conditions brought out by the State Government are also covered under the Rules of 1982. The extent of application as per the Rule 2(a) of the Rules of 1982 specifically makes it applicable to: “Any person for whose appointment and conditions of employment special provision is made by or under any law for the time being in force” (sic). There can hence be no dispute raised on the applicability of the Rules of 1982, insofar as aided school teachers are concerned whose pay and allowances and service conditions are regulated by the Government.” 11. In afore judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that aided school teachers are also entitled to some of the conditions of service as are applicable to Government teachers, with entitlement of pension, provident fund and gratuity as applicable, in accordance with the Rules brought out under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Most importantly, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that though teachers may not be holding a post under the State Government, but it is akin to a post under the State Government, at least for the monetary benefits of pay and allowances, while in service, as also pension and other benefits on retirement. In view of aforesaid judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Division Bench of this Court, respondent-State is estopped from claiming that petitioners were not Government employees, as such, not entitled to gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 12. Leaving everything aside, as has been noticed hereinabove, sum of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of gratuity already stands paid to the petitioners by the respondents-State. Dispute, if any, is with regard to balance sum of Rs.3,00,00/-. 12. Leaving everything aside, as has been noticed hereinabove, sum of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of gratuity already stands paid to the petitioners by the respondents-State. Dispute, if any, is with regard to balance sum of Rs.3,00,00/-. If the reply filed by respondent No.3 is read in its entirety, it emerges that sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as balance gratuity is required to be paid by respondent No.3/College, whereas as per respondent No.3, liability, if any, to pay gratuity amount rests with the respondents-State. It is contended on behalf of the respondent No.3/College that since 95% Grant-in-Aid is being provided by the respondents-State, liability to that extent with regard to pensionary benefits including gratuity and leave encashment, also rests with the respondents-State. 13. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that notification with regard to enhancement of earned leave from 10 days to 20 days has been issued by the respondent/University, which is not binding upon the respondents-State, but he was unable to dispute that notification dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-12) issued by the Registrar, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, came to be issued after the approval given in that regard by Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Bare perusal of communication dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-8) issued by the Director of Higher Education clearly reveals that afore authority recommended to Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to enhance earned leave of teaching staff of GIA Colleges at par with teaching staff of Government Colleges, i.e. 20 days earned leave in a calendar year. Pursuant to afore recommendation made by Director, Higher Education, Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, vide communication dated 18.07.2022, addressed to Registrar, Himachal Pradesh, conveyed its decision to enhance the earned leave of teaching staff of GIA Colleges at par with teaching staff of Government College, i.e. 20 days earned leave in a calendar year. Pursuant to aforesaid communication, notification dated 11.08.2022 (Annexure P-10) came to be issued by the Registrar, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla which was further modified vide notification dated 25.09.2023 (Annexure P-12), whereby afore decision was made applicable w.e.f August, 2016. In view of facts as detailed herein above, respondent-State is estopped from claiming that it is not bound by the notification issued by respondent No.4/University. In view of facts as detailed herein above, respondent-State is estopped from claiming that it is not bound by the notification issued by respondent No.4/University. Moreover, once this Court, having taken note of the fact that judgments passed by Division Bench of this Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court detailed hereinabove, has arrived at a definite conclusion that teachers of 95% aided college are akin to teachers of State Government, prayer of the petitioner to grant monetary benefits of pay and allowances, which also includes leave encashment, deserve to be granted. 14. Since it is not in dispute, rather stands admitted that maximum limit of gratuity of Rs.10,00,000/- has been enhanced to Rs.20,00,000/- as is evident from office memorandum dated 25.02.2025 (Annexure P-6) and such decision is applicable w.e.f 01.01.2016, claim of the petitioners for enhanced gratuity is also required to be considered in light of aforesaid office memorandum. 15. Consequently, in view of above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and same is allowed. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to release 95% Grant-in-Aid towards amount of leave encashment on account of increased /enhanced earned leave of 20 days in each calendar year from August, 2016, till superannuation of the petitioners i.e. 31.03.2023 and 30.06.2020 and further to release 95% Grant-in-Aid in favour of petitioner Shramja Munjal towards remaining amount of gratuity as per Annexure P-6. Similarly, respondent No. 3/College is also directed to release its 5% share towards above benefits. While complying with the direction with regard to interest on delayed payment, the respondents shall take note of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gagan Bihari Prusty v. Paradip Port Trust & Ors., SLP No. 4468/2022, whereby petitioner in that case has been held entitled to interest at the rate of 10% on the amount of gratuity. Needless to say, needful in terms of this order shall be done by the respondents, within two months from today. Both the petitions stand disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications.