IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16084 of 2024 ========================================== KANTI CHARAN TRIPATHI Versus WATER AND SANITATION MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION WASMO ========================================== Appearance: MS JANHVI N SONGARA(13254) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS AAYUSHI SHUKLA FOR MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 24/02/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Present petition is 1led by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act (for short “the Act”) seeking following reliefs:- (A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ of certiorari and/or writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Learned Controlling Authority and the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Learned Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Gratuity Act, qua denying the bene(ts of interest on gratuity as payable under the Act. (B) Your Lordships be pleased to impose an exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- against the respondent for wilful and deliberate act on delaying the payment of gratuity and denying the amount of interest on the gratuity. (C) Pending hearing and (nal disposal of this petition, Your p. 2 Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent to pay the bene(ts of interest on the amount of gratuity from the date of amount payable as per the provisions of the Act. (D) Your Lordships be pleased to pass any other and further orders as may be deemed (t and just in the interest of justice. 2. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager on 01.04.2005 and he had rendered service for thirteen and half years and, therefore, he is entitled for the amount of gratuity and w.e.f. 28.02.2019, the petitioner was retired from the services. That as per Section 7(3) of the Act, the petitioner was entitled to receive the amount of gratuity within 30 days from the date of retirement, but same has not been done in time and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to get interest at the rate of 10% per annum as per Section 7(3-A) of the Act from the date of retirement. The petitioner had 1led the proceedings for recovery of the gratuity amount with interest before the Controlling Authority which came to be allowed and ordered to pay 10% interest. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was allowed and the order passed by the Controlling Authority was con1rmed. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatis1ed with the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 4. Heard Ms.Janhvi Songara, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Aayushi Shukla, learned counsel for Mr.Rituraj Meena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material on record. 5. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by p. 3 learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and the material along with the relevant documents available on record. This Court has gone through the order passed by the Controlling Authority and the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 6. From the material on record, it reveals that the petitioner was retired from the service w.e.f. 28.02.2019 and, therefore, as per the Rules, he was entitled to get the payment of gratuity, despite of this fact, the authority has not paid the amount of gratuity in time. That the petitioner approached the Controlling Authority and the Controlling Authority directed the concerned authority to pay 10% simple interest on gratuity from the date of application, against which the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. After hearing both the parties, the Appellate Authority has observed that from 01.03.2019 to 19.09.2023, the amount of gratuity was due and payable along with 10% simple interest and considering the relevant evidence, the Appellate Authority has con1rmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority as the petitioner himself has 1led an application after a period of four years and therefore he was not entitled to get interest from the date of retirement. The Appellant Authority has, while relying upon the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 10260 of 2013, dismissed the appeal. 7. This Court is of the view that the petitioner was already retired from the services w.e.f. 28.02.2019 and he had preferred an application after a delay of four years and, therefore, at the behest of the petitioner, the liability to pay interest cannot be fastened upon the respondent from the date of retirement. On perusal of the aforesaid orders passed by the authorities below, this Court is of the opinion that there is no any illegality and in1rmity in the orders and the p. 4 authorities below have not committed any error of facts and law in passing the orders and, hence, the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL