Authority must decide claims for time-scale benefits and delayed gratuity interest through a reasoned order.

The petitioner, a Principal of a Higher Secondary School, retired on attaining the age of superannuation in May 2024 pursuant to the order dated 28 December 2022.

She was allegedly entitled to gratuity of approximately ₹20,00,000, but the amount was withheld for nearly two years despite there being no fault attributable to her. The gratuity was ultimately paid on 7 August 2026.

The petitioner also claimed entitlement to the benefit of the III Kramonnat Vetanman on completion of 30 years of service. On 10 August 2026, she submitted a representation seeking the III Kramonnat Vetanman and statutory interest on the delayed gratuity, but no decision was taken by the respondents.

She therefore approached the High Court seeking interest, grant of the pay-scale benefit, consequential arrears, and completion of pensionary formalities.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory interest on the gratuity paid belatedly on 7 August 2026.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the III Kramonnat Vetanman on completion of 30 years of service.

Whether the pending representation was required to be decided by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order within a prescribed time.

The Court applied the principle that delayed payment of retiral dues, including gratuity, may attract statutory interest where the employee is otherwise entitled to such payment and the delay is not attributable to the employee.

It further applied the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority must consider an employee’s claim for service or retiral benefits and, if rejecting it, provide reasons through a reasoned and speaking order.

The entitlement to the III Kramonnat Vetanman was left to be determined by the competent authority under the applicable rules and Government orders, rather than being conclusively adjudicated by the Court.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s representation concerning both the III Kramonnat Vetanman and interest on delayed gratuity was pending before respondent No. 3.

Although the petitioner asserted that she had completed 30 years of service and that the gratuity had been delayed without fault on her part, the State contended that gratuity had already been paid and questioned whether the pay-scale benefit had been claimed during service.

In view of the pending representation and the need for factual and rule-based determination of entitlement, the Court declined to grant the substantive benefits directly. Instead, it directed the competent authority to decide the representation within three months.

If entitlement was established, the benefits, including interest, were to be paid within that period; otherwise, reasons were required to be recorded in a speaking order.

If the petitioner was found entitled to the III Kramonnat Vetanman and interest on delayed gratuity, the same was to be paid within that period. If the claim was rejected, the competent authority was required to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

No direct order granting the benefits was issued by the Court.