2025:KER:26333 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 13449 OF 2023 PETITIONER: T.G.MATHEW, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O T.M.GEORGE, HOUSE NO.FF 9/118, P.T.CHACKO NAGAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE, PATTOM, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN – 695011. BY ADV S.S.ARAVIND RESPONDENTS: KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KELTRON HOUSE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN – 695033. BY ADVS. P.C.ANIL KUMAR M.A.ZOHRA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)NO.13449 of 2023 2 2025:KER:26333 JUDGMENT The petitioner who was working with the respondent herein as master technician and having retired w.e.f. 31.03.2011 was not paid the retiral benefits. The refusal to extend the retiral benefits including the gratuity was essentially on account of some revenue recovery proceedings taken by the Kerala State Financial Enterprises as well as some coercive steps taken at the instance of the Bank from which the petitioner had obtained some credit facilities. 2. The petitioner was before this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.37349 of 2022 seeking appropriate directions with respect to disbursal of the component of gratuity. This Court by Ext.P5 judgment dated 08.12.2022, found with reference to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, that the withholding of the gratuity component cannot be justified. Therefore, a positive direction was issued to the respondent herein to disburse the component of gratuity, within a period of 45 days from W.P.(C)NO.13449 of 2023 3 2025:KER:26333 the date of receipt of a certified copy of Ext.P5 judgment. 3. Both sides admit that the gratuity component as directed was paid within the period of 45 days, as ordered by this Court. 4. At that point of time, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 to the respondent pointing out that he was entitled for the component of interest with respect to the admitted belated payment, as noticed above. Insofar as the interest component is not being satisfied, the petitioner is before this Court through the captioned writ petition. 5. I have heard Sri.S.S.Aravind, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Zohra M.A., the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent herein. 6. The entitlement for the petitioner for interest with reference to the admitted belated payment of gratuity is the short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition. 7. Smt.Zohra M.A., the learned counsel for the respondent would point out with reference to the W.P.(C)NO.13449 of 2023 4 2025:KER:26333 various exhibits produced along with W.P.(C)No.37349 of 2022, which is seen disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment that the petitioner was the one who is responsible for the delay in payment of gratuity. She would also point out that the petitioner never informed about the withdrawal of the coercive steps taken by the Bank and also about the orders issued by the Lok Ayukta produced as Ext.P5 in that writ petition etc. to contend that there is no liability for interest, as far as the respondent herein is concerned. 8. However, I notice that the petitioner has relied on the provisions of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, to contend that interest is a statutory eligibility of the petitioner in cases where the same is being belatedly paid. The circumstances under which the interest eligibility is not made applicable, are those provided under the proviso to Section 7(3A) of the Act. At the same time, I notice that there has not been any consideration with reference to the eligibility or otherwise for interest with reference to the provisions of Section 7(3A) and the proviso thereto, in the case of the petitioner. W.P.(C)NO.13449 of 2023 5 2025:KER:26333 9. In such circumstances, I permit the petitioner to file an appropriate representation before the respondent herein, relying upon the provisions of Section 7(3A) of the Act, within a period of three weeks from today. If such a representation is being filed by the petitioner, the respondent herein to adjudicate the claim to be raised by the petitioner, within a further period of one month thereafter and after hearing the petitioner also. With the afore directions, this writ petition would stand disposed of. Sd/- HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE ANA W.P.(C)NO.13449 of 2023 6 2025:KER:26333 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13449/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE STANDING DISABILITY ASSESSMENT BOARD DATED 18.01.2013 Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 31.03.2011 Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 04.04,2011 Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 14.12.2013 Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P(C) NO.37349/2022 DATED 08/12/2022 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/02/2023 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT