Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010008862026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/12/2026 SMT. PRISCILLA PATHAK W/O SRI GEETARTHA PATHAK R/O HENGRABARI HOUSNG COLONY UNIT 5 MIGB3 DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781006 VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM IN THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM. 2:THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT GRATUITY ACT 1972 AND ASSSTT. LABOUR COMMISSIONER GHYSHRAM BHAWAN ULUBARI GUWAHATI PIN-784007 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3:THE MANAGEMENT OF HOLY CHILD SCHOOL REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HOUSE NO. 15 KRISHNANAGAR ROAD PIYOLI PHUKAN ROAD WEST JYOTI NAGAR KRISHNA NAGAR CHANDMARI PIN-781003 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM For the Appellant(s) : Mr. N. Patiri, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam. : Mr. G. Choudhury, Advocate for respondent No.3. Page No.# 2/6 –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 13.07.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. N. Patiri, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. G. Choudhury, learned Advocate for respondent No.3. By this intra-Court appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 18.12.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.5542/2025. The appellant after having served for about 36 years in the school in question retired in the year 2019. The School Management paid her only Rs.1,00,000/- as gratuity, which unfortunately was accepted by her for her lack of awareness about her entitlements with respect to gratuity. When it was learnt by her later in the year 2024 that she was entitled to a higher amount as gratuity, she approached the Controlling Authority (Assistant Labour Commissioner, Guwahati) to claim her full gratuity amount. The Controlling Authority, acceding to the request of the appellant, passed an order entitling her to a gratuity amount of Rs.5,77,343/- and as an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- had already been paid to her, she was to be paid an amount of Rs.4,77,343/- along with an interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the delayed payment which became Page No.# 3/6 due to her after 30 days of her retirement. The afore-noted decision of the Controlling Authority was questioned by the School Management vide WP(C) No.5542/2025, wherein it was held by the learned Single Judge that the appellant was entitled to the higher amount of gratuity and an interest of 10% on delayed payment but the delay had to be counted from the year 2024, i.e. from the date when the matter was taken to the Controlling Authority by the appellant. This dilution of the order of the Controlling Authority has been questioned by the appellant on the ground that it was the duty of the employer/School Management to pay gratuity to an employee in accordance with the Rules. Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 enjoins upon an employer to determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the employee to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the Controlling Authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined and thereafter, make arrangements to pay the amount of gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable. The provisions contained in Section 7 further mandate that if the amount of gratuity payable is not paid by the employer within the period specified, the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable, to 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 Page No.# 4/6 may, by notification specify. However, no 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. Mr. N. Patiri, learned Advocate for the appellant has, therefore, argued that the determination of gratuity in the first instance by the employer/School Management was incorrect. However, no objection could be raised and the same was accepted by the appellant because of lack of her knowledge regarding the quantum of gratuity to which she was entitled. Thus, in this case, Mr. Patiri argues that it must be deemed to have been accepted under protest, without impinging upon her rights and obligations to question the amount later. The appellant came to learn about the anomaly in the payment of gratuity by the School Administration in the year 2024 when the matter was promptly brought to the notice of the Controlling Authority by her. In that case, it has been argued that the appellant should be entitled to be paid 10% interest on such unpaid gratuity amount to which she was entitled from one month after her retirement. Her responsibility as the payee of the gratuity amount was discharged in time. It was only due to the wrong calculation by the School Administration that such delayed payment of the actual amount according to her entitlement was paid for which the responsibility lies squarely on the School Administration/ Page No.# 5/6 employer. As opposed to the afore-noted contention, Mr. G. Choudhury, learned Advocate for respondent No.3 submits that once the gratuity amount paid to the appellant was accepted by her and only after five years of delay, she questioned the same on the basis of other exemplars, interest from the 30 days after the date of retirement of the appellant ought not to be made payable to her. We find from the records that there is no question by the School Administration of the Controlling Authorities’ decision about the quantum of the gratuity amount to which the appellant is held to be entitled. Under such circumstances, we find that the delay in the appellant having received the correct gratuity amount was largely occasioned due to the wrong calculation of the gratuity amount by the School Management/employer, the appellant must be paid the interest on such delayed payment from the time when the correct gratuity amount was payable to her. Thus, we modify the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.12.2025 to that extent and restore the order passed by the Controlling Authority, directing the payment of 10% simple interest on the delayed payment of the gratuity amount, to be calculated from the 30 days after the retirement of the appellant. We order accordingly. The afore-said exercise shall be undertaken by the respondents within a period of 90 days from today. Page No.# 6/6 The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant