The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Jharsuguda ….... Petitioner -Versus- G. Shyamal Rao (dead), G. Kamala Rao & Ors. ....... Opposite Parties Advocate for the parties For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Pattanayak, Advocate For Opposite Parties (for O.P. Nos.1(a) & 1(b) Advocate : Ms. A. Mishra, ................... CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Date of Hearing & Judgment : 08.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________ S.K. MISHRA, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (Employer) challenging the order dated 26.05.2015 passed by the Controlling Authority-cum- Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Rourkela under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, shortly hereinafter, “P.G. Act”, in application no.36(12)2014/RKL/R, so also the confirming order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar. 2. Such orders are challenged basically on the ground that the Petitioner was justified to withhold the gratuity. The Opposite Party No.1-employee, though was superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.01.2010, illegally and unauthorisedly retained the quarter allotted to him for about 3 years and 9 months i.e. from 01.04.2010 till 2014. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, reiterating the
Decision
grounds urged in the writ petition so also relying on the judgment of this Court in (Debakar Vs. Steel Authority of India & ors.), reported in 2001 (I) OLR 41 submits, because of the reason of not vacating the Company’s quarter after retirement, the Petitioner- Employer was justified to withhold the gratuity. That apart, while preferring Appeal Case No.01 of 2016, as required under the second Proviso under sub-section 7 of Section 7 of P.G. Act, 1972, the entire awarded amount of gratuity with accrued interest as on the said date, to the tune of Rs.13,36,168.20/-, has already been deposited with the Controlling Authority vide demand draft dated 28.12.2015, drawn in the name of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar. W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 2 of 19 4. Mr. Pattanayak further submits, the Controlling Authority was not justified to direct to release the gratuity amount along with 10% interest, which has been incorrectly confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide the second impugned order dated 25.10.2016 passed in Appeal Case No.01 of 2016 . 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1, drawing attention of this Court to the observations so also findings in the impugned orders as well as legal provisions, enshrined under sub-section (3-A) of Section 7 of the P.G. Act, 1972, submits that the Controlling Authority was justified to award 10% interest over and above the gratuity amount payable to the Opposite Party No.1, in view of the legal provisions in the said regard, as contemplated under sub-section 3 & (3-A) of Section 7 of the P.G. Act, 1972, which was rightly confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 6. Relying on a recent judgment of this Court reported in 2025 (I) ILR CUT 1314 (Md. Odisha State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhubaneswar Vs. Prafulla Kumar Pattnaik & ors.), so also the judgment reported in Manu/ OR/1312 (Managing Director, Odisha State Cooperative Bank, Ltd. Vs. Managovinda Barik & ors.), she further submits, law with regard to withholding and payment of gratuity, so also awarding W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 3 of 19 interest on delayed payment is well settled, as has been detailed in the said judgments of this Court. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Controlling Authority so also the confirming order passed by the Appellate Authority and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs to compensate the hardship caused to the Opposite Party, who died during pendency of the writ petition, so also his legal heirs. 7. That apart, to substantiate the stand regarding allowing the Opposite Party No.1 to retain the official quarter on the basis of making payment of penal rent, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1, drawing attention of this Court to documents at Annexure A/1 series to the Counter, submits, after retirement of the Opposite Party No.1, he was paying penal rent from time to time, which was duly accepted by the MCL Authority. That apart, vide communication dated 22/26.02.2014, as at Annexure-B/1 to the Counter, it was intimated to the Opposite Party No.1 by the Chief Manager (Pers.)/APM, IB Valley Area to make further payment of penal rent to the tune of Rs.1,06,228.88 till the said date. 8. She further submits, though, during pendency of the P.G. Appeal, the Opposite Party No.1 deposited the said amount in form of an at par cheque , drawn in the name of the employer, the W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 4 of 19 same was not accepted by the MCL Authority on the plea of pendency of the Appeal. Hence, the Opposite Party No.1 cannot be blamed for alleged illegal retention of quarter to justify such withholding of gratuity payable to the Opposite Party No.1 and avoid paying 10% interest for the delayed period, as awarded by the Controlling Authority. 9. Before dealing with the issues regarding justification on the part of the Petitioner-Employer to withhold the gratuity of the Opposite Party No-1 as well as imposition of 10% interest thereon, as ordered by the Controlling Authority, it would be apt to reproduce below the operative portion of the said order dated 26.05.2015 passed by the Controlling Authority . to as that record speaks “Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 is a self-contained code. It does not say anything or debar one from getting gratuity dues in case he occupies company‟s quarters after retirement. Section 4(6) clearly under what circumstances gratuity can be forfeited or held up. Act clearly says that in case the employee is at fault & gratuity is not paid to him for that, interest is not payable. It is seen from the opposite party management has granted permission to the applicant to retain the quarters on specific conditions. Thus in no way the employee is held responsible or at fault. Thus with holding gratuity for 04 years and 10 months. is not proper. Thus for delayed payment he is entitled to get interest. Hence the Opposite Party management is liable to pay simple interest @ 10% per annum as specified by the Central Government in the Gazette of India Notification vide S.0. No. 847(E). dated 01.10.1887 under sub-section W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 5 of 19 (3A) of section 7 of the P.G. Act, 1972 w.e.f. to the applicant for delayed payment of gratuity. The opposite party is directed to pay the gratuity along with interest. Gratuity has to be paid to an employee within 30 days once it became due. In case of delay the employer has to pay simple interest for the delayed payment. Payment of Gratuity with or without interest as the case may be does not consist in the domain of discretion, but it is a statutory compulsion. Specific benefits expressly provided under a social beneficial legislation cannot be ordinarily denied. That the Hon’ble Apex Court in the State of Kerala vrs. M. Padmanabhan Nair in SLP No.9425 of 1984 has opined “ that Employees have valuable rights to get the gratuity and any culpable delay in payment of gratuity must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. As is revealed from the said order dated 26.05.2015, as at Annexure-2, after dealing with the issue regarding maintainability of such application on the ground of limitation and condoning the delay, the Controlling Authority proceeded further on merit and allowed the prayer made by the Opposite Party No.1 in the said case .It was held that the Opposite Party No.1 is entitled to receive the gratuity along with 10% interest per annum as per the notification of the Government of India, vide Notification bearing No.SO 874 (E) dated 01.10.1987, for the period of 31.01.2010 till the said date. Accordingly, a direction was given to the Petitioner- Management to pay the entire amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order directly to W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 6 of 19 the Opposite Party No.1 under intimation to the Controlling Authority. 11. As is further revealed from the said impugned order, the Petitioner-Management did not file any application opposing to the prayer for condonation of delay so also Written Statement on merit in response to the application preferred by the Opposite Party No.1 under the P.G. Act. Rather, on conclusion of hearing, it filed written notes of argument before the Controlling Authority. 12. While dealing with and disposing of the said application of the Opposite Party No.1, the Controlling Authority, dealing with provisions enshrined under Section 4(6) of the P.G. Act, 1972, categorically observed that in case the employee is at fault and gratuity is not paid to him for that, interest is not payable, provided the Management has taken permission to withhold the gratuity from the Controlling Authority. That apart, it was also observed that, as the applicant was accorded permission to retain the quarters on specific conditions, thus, in no way he can be held to be at fault or responsible for such delay. Hence, it was held that withholding gratuity for 04 years and 10 months is not proper and the Management is liable to pay simple interest @ 10% per annum, in terms of the Central Government in the Gazette of India W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 7 of 19 Notification vide S.0. No. 847(E). dated 01.10.1887, as empowered under sub-section (3A) of section 7 of the P.G. Act, 1972. 13. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the said order with the following findings:- FINDINGS “1. The General Manager, Ib Valley Area, Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd, (herein after called as Appellarit) preferred an appeal U/s. 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act against the order of the Controlling Labour Commissioner (Central), Rourkela in the case of Sri G. Shyamal Rao (herein after called as Respondent). Authority-cum-Regional The that informed appellant it was stated The Respondent did not vacate 2. the Respondent was superannuated on 31.01.2010. The gratuity amount due to him was sanctioned vide order No. 4290 dated 28th/29th January, 2010 and the same was communicated. the 3. company quarters even after taking permission to vacate the quarters within 3 months of his superannuation. 4. The Appellant brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority of Orissa High Court in Case No. 2491/1998 wherein that after vacation of quarters in illegal and unauthorized occupation, gratuity is payable subject to calculation of dues payable to the claimant for his unauthorized occupation of quarters and after deducting the said amount, the balance payable to the Petitioner may be paid towards gratuity from the day he vacates quarter. The Appellant prayed that the respondent 5. vacated the quarters after 4years and as such the payment of interest passed by the Controlling Authority @ 10% is not fair. Hence he prayed that the gratuity may be 6. paid without any interest and the amount due for unauthorized occupation of quarters by the respondent may be deducted from his gratuity. 7. The Respondent informed that the quarter has been vacated since February, 2014. W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 8 of 19 The Respondent also informed that he is willing to pay the rent and other amounts as claimed by the appellant but the payment of gratuity to be made with interest from the date of superannuation. 8. The Controlling Authority has clearly analyzed the responsibility of the Appellant in making payment of gratuity to his employee i.e. Respondent under the statute. has Controlling 9. analyzed the provision of interest to be paid as envisaged under the statute for not paying gratuity within the stipulated time. Authority The that in occupying 10. The Controlling Authority has also dealt the empowerment of the Appellate Authority in withholding gratuity U/s. 4(6) of the Act. The Controlling Authority has made it 11. clear the company’s accommodation beyond 3 months permitted order of the Appellant to occupy the quarters does not empower the Appellant to withhold the gratuity. When the Appellant has no power to 12. withhold the gratuity for occupying company’s quarters unauthorisedly and the payment made at a later stage is delayed payment. As such the gratuity is to be paid with interest which has been made clear by the Controlling Authority. The Respondent The Authority has no power to attach 13. any amount to deduct the amount of non- payment of rent or penal interest as requested by the Respondent as the gratuity amount cannot be attached. 14. to make payment of rent and other dues for the occupation of the company‟s quarters is beyond jurisdiction of the Authority to deal with as the authority is only concerned the Respondent. 15. I No.36(12)/2014-R dated 26.05.2015 Controlling Commissioner (Central), Rourkela.” for payment of gratuity decision the of Labour Authority-cum-Regional is willing uphold Hence, the to (Emphasis Supplied) W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 9 of 19 14. As enshrined under sub-section 3 of section 7 of P.G. Act, 1972, the Employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within 30 days from the date of it becomes payable. Sub- section (3-A) of Section 7 of the P.G. Act, 1972 mandates that if the gratuity payable in terms of sub-section 3 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 actually 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 the Government may, by notification specify. However, the proviso under the said sub-section prescribes 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 such ground. Sub-section 3 & (3-A) of Section 7 of the Act, 1972, being relevant, are reproduced below for ready reference:- “ 3. The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity, within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable. (3-A).If the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section 3 is not paid by the employer within in sub-section 3, the the period specified employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 10 of 19 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 that Government may, by notification specify. long-term deposits, as 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 the delayed controlling authority payment on this ground.” for (Emphasis supplied) 15. Admittedly, in the present case, neither the Management of MCL sought for permission from the Controlling Authority to withhold the gratuity of the Opposite Party No.1 on the ground that he is illegally and unauthorisedly occupying the quarter of the Management of MCL after his retirement nor the said admitted amount of gratuity was deposited before the Controlling Authority to avoid imposition of interest on the gratuity payable, in terms of sub-section (3-A), under section 7 of the P.G. Act, 1972. Rather, the Management permitted the Opposite Party No.1 to retain the said quarter by accepting rent/ penal rent, as was demonstrated before the Controlling Authority, so also before this Court by filing documents to the said effect, which have been appended to the Counter Affidavit. Though the Petitioner-Management has filed Rejoinder in response to the said Counter filed by the Opposite Party No.1, the averments permitting the Opposite Party to pay penal rent and making such W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 11 of 19 payments for certain period have not been denied in the Rejoinder. That apart, the Controlling Authority, while passing the impugned order, also took note of such fact. 16. On examination of the Judgment in Dibakar Vs. Steel Authority (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is of the view that the facts and circumstances of the said case are different and the said judgment is not applicable to the present case. Rather, the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 in Md. Odisha State Cooperative Bank Ltd., (supra) so also in Managing Director, Odisha State Cooperative Bank, Ltd. (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. In a recent Judgment, reported in 2024 (I) ILR-CUT- 1421 (The Sr. Branch Manager, the National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar & anr. Vs. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar-cum-the Appellate Authority and ors.), while dealing with an issue regarding right of the Employer to delay or withhold payment of gratuity, this Court held as follow:- a) “As prescribed under section 4(1) of the Act, 1972, gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years on his superannuation or on his retirement or W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 12 of 19 or by service registered resignation or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. However, completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement. b) In terms of section 7(1) of the Act, 1972 read with rule 7(1) & (6) of the Rules, 1972, a person, who is eligible for payment of gratuity under the said Act, 1972 or any person authorized, in writing, to act on his behalf, shall send a written application to the Employer in Form „I‟ ordinarily within thirty days from the date the gratuity became payable, either by personal post acknowledgement due. c) As provided under rule 7 (1) of the Rules, 1972, where the date of superannuation or retirement of an employee is known, the employee may apply to the Employer before thirty days of the date of superannuation or retirement for payment of gratuity. d) Rule 7(5) of the Rules, 1972 provides that an application for payment of gratuity filed after the expiry of the periods specified in rule 7(1) of the Rules, 1972 shall also be entertained by the Employer, if the applicant adduces sufficient cause for the delay in preferring his claim. e) As provided under rule 7(5) of the Rules, 1972, no claim for the gratuity under the Act, 1972 shall be invalid merely because the claimant has failed to present his application within the specified period. f) In terms of Rule-8(1) under Rules, 1972, within fifteen days of the receipt of an application under rule 7 for payment of gratuity, the Employer shall, if the claim is found admissible on verification, issue a notice in Form „L‟ to the applicant employee, nominee or legal heir, as the case may be, specifying the amount of gratuity payable and fixing a date, not being later than the thirtieth day after the date of receipt of the application, for payment thereof. g) As provided under rule 8(1) (ii) of the Rules, 1972, if the claim for gratuity is not found admissible, the Employer is to issue a notice in Form ‘M’ to the applicant employee, nominee or legal heir, as the case may be, specifying the reasons as to why the claim for gratuity is not considered admissible. In either case, where the gratuity claimed is admissible or inadmissible, a copy of the notice in Form ‘L’ or ‘M’ given to the applicant shall be endorsed to the Controlling Authority. W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 13 of 19 the cause for the occurrence of h) An Employer cannot simply issue notice in Form-M to the employee rejecting claim for payment of gratuity. If the Employer so desires to forfeit the gratuity, a Show Cause Notice has to be given, because the gratuity amount to which the Employee is otherwise entitled is to be forfeited, which is a drastic consequence for the Employee concerned. i) As provided under rule 10(1)(iii) of the Rules, 1972, if pursuant to the application filed in terms of rule 7 of Rules, 1972 a notice is given under rule 8(1) either specifying an amount of gratuity which is considered by the application less than what is payable or rejecting his/her eligibility for payment of gratuity or the Employer fails to issue any notice as required under rule 8 within the time specified therein, the claimant employee, nominee or legal heir, as the case may be, may, within ninety days of the application, apply in Form „N‟ to the Controlling Authority for issuing a direction under section 7(4) of the Act, 1972 with as many extra copies as are the opposite parties. j) In view of the provisions enshrined under section 7(2) of the Act, 1972, as soon as gratuity becomes payable, the Employer shall, whether an application referred to in sub- section (1) has been made or not, determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also the Controlling Authority, specifying the amount of gratuity so determined. k) As prescribed under section 7(3) of the Act, 1972, the Employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity, within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable l) In terms of section 7(3-A) of the Act, 1972, if the amount of gratuity payable under subsection (3) is not paid by the Employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), 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 may, by notification specify (As per the notification dated 10.10.1987 the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred under subsection (3-A) of section 7 of the P.G. Act, 1972, 10% interest is payable). issued by W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 14 of 19 (a), from in clause in writing m) In view of the proviso under section 7(3-A) of the Act, 1972, no such interest is payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the Employer has obtained permission the Controlling Authority for the delayed payment on the said ground. n) As prescribed under section 7(4)(a) of the Act, 1972, if there is any dispute as to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under the said Act or as to the admissibility of any claim of, or in relation to, an employee for payment of gratuity, or as to the person entitled to receive the gratuity, the Employer shall deposit with the Controlling Authority such amount as he admits to be payable by him as gratuity. o) Where there is a dispute with regard to any matter or matters specified the Employer or employee or any other person raising the dispute may make an application to the Controlling Authority for deciding the dispute, in terms of section 7(4)(b) of the Act, 1972. p) As provided under section 7(4)(c) of the Act, 1972, the Controlling Authority shall, after due inquiry and after giving the parties to the dispute a reasonable opportunity of being heard, determine the matter or matters in dispute and if, as a result of such inquiry any amount is found to be payable to the employee, the Controlling Authority shall direct the Employer to pay such amount or, as the case may be, such amount as reduced by the amount already deposited by the Employer. q) As provided in sub-section (6) of section 4 of the Act, 1972, the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the Employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused. r) As per the settled position of law, as detailed above, before forfeiting the gratuity of an employee in terms of clause (1) of sub-section 6 of section 4 of the Act, 1972, any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the Employer has to be quantified by the Employer. s) Similarly, as prescribed in clause (b) of subsection 6 of section 4 of the Act, 1972, the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited, if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or if the services of such employee have been terminated W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 15 of 19 for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in course of his employment. t) As held by the apex Court in Union Bank of India (supra), under sub-section (6)(b)(ii) of section 4 of the Act, forfeiture of gratuity is permissible if the termination of an employee is for any misconduct which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, and the employee concerned is convicted accordingly by a Court of competent jurisdiction. It is not for the Employer to decide whether the offence has been committed amounting to involving moral turpitude. u) As held in Rabindranath Choubey (supra), if departmental proceeding has been initiated against an employee before his retirement, if the service rules of the departmental proceeding can continue even after retirement of an employee and if the employee is found guilty, minor or major punishment, including the punishment of dismissal can be imposed by the Employer, even the employee has retired. v) As was further held by the apex Court in Rabindranath Choubey enquiry (supra), proceeding has to be concluded first on merit and after passing appropriate order in accordance with law, thereafter necessary consequences as per section 4 of the Act, 1972, more particularly sub- section (6) of section-4 of the Act, 1972 and the Rules of the Employer shall to follow. The recovery, as provided under section-4(6) of the Act, 1972, is in addition to a punishment that can be imposed on an employee after his superannuation.” the Employer provide so, the (Emphasis supplied) 18. In view of the admitted facts on record, legal provisions so also the settled position of law, as detailed above, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders and the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves dismissal. 19. So far as payment of the gratuity with interest to the Opposite Party No-1, unfortunately he died during pendency of the W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 16 of 19 present writ petition, for which his LRs have been substituted. Pertinent to mention here that, the purpose of paying gratuity, after an employee’s retirement, is to provide a lump-sum financial reward for his/her long-term loyalty, dedication, and significant contributions to the Employer/Organization, acting as a legal obligation under the P.G. Act,1972, and is a crucial part of an employee’s post-retirement financial security. Timely payment of gratuity to a retired employee provides immediate financial stability, so also is a valuable asset for his/her future planning. Hence, the provisions under the P.G. Act, 1972 mandates payment of gratuity to a retired employee within 30 days from the date of his retirement. During his lifetime, though the Opposite Party No-1 fought a long legal battle to get his legitimate legal dues, but he failed to get the benefit of gratuity from his Employer. 20. Admittedly, the awarded amount of gratuity with interest was deposited with the Controlling Authority in view of the precondition prescribed in the Second Proviso, under sub-section 7 of section 7 of the P.G. Act ,1972, which prescribes that no Appeal by an Employer shall be admitted unless, at the time of preferring the Appeal, the Appellant either produces a certificate of the Controlling Authority to the effect that the Appellant has deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 17 of 19 required to be deposited under sub- section 4 or deposits such amount with the Appellate Authority. 21. Though a stand has been taken by the Petitioner-MCL in the writ petition that the awarded amount of gratuity with interest, to the tune of Rs.13,36,168.20/-, has already been deposited with the Controlling Authority vide demand draft dated 28.12.2015, this Court is of the view that, if such deposited amount is released in favour of the LRs of the Opposite Party No-1 with accrued savings bank rate of interest, i.e. , 2.5% to 3%, from the date of such deposit till the date of release, it would not suffice the legal requirement mandated under sub-section (3-A) of section 7 of the P.G. Act, 1972. 22. Hence, the Controlling Authority, i.e., Opposite Party No.3, is directed to disburse the said deposited amount of Rs.13,36,168.20/-, with accrued interest thereon, in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased employee, who have been arrayed as Opposite Party Nos.1(a) & 1(b) in the present writ petition, forthwith in accordance with law, on production of the certified copy of this judgment. 23. That apart, the Controlling Authority/ Opposite Party No.3 is further directed to make a calculation of interest @10% on the gratuity payable to the Opposite Party No-1 w.e.f. 28.12.2015, W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 18 of 19 i.e., the date of deposit of demand draft before it, till date and determine the differential interest payable to the LRs of the deceased employee, after deducting the interest accrued on the deposited amount of Rs.13,36,168.20/-, as detailed above. 24. It is made clear that, after calculation/determination of such deferential interest, the Controlling Authority- Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to recover the same from the Petitioner- Employer and make payment to the LRs of the deceased Opposite Party No-1 at the earliest, preferably by end of March, 2026. 25. With the said observations and directions, the writ petition stands dismissed. …….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated, 8th December, 2025/ Banita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 12-Dec-2025 17:55:11 W.P.(C) No.21214 of 2016 Page 19 of 19