No further interest accrues on gratuity principal after its deposit.

The petitioner, a retired teacher, obtained an order from the Controlling Authority directing payment of ₹3,23,301 as gratuity, with simple interest at 10% per annum from 1 March 2011 until payment of the principal.

The employer’s challenge to that order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and the order was ultimately confirmed in earlier proceedings before the High Court, including a Letters Patent Appeal.

The petitioner later sought recovery of further interest, contending that the amount paid was insufficient.

The Controlling Authority declined to initiate recovery, and the Appellate Authority upheld that decision, leading to this petition.

The employer maintained that the principal had been deposited on 16 September 2013 and that the interest and other amounts due had been paid.

Whether any amount remained payable to the petitioner under the Controlling Authority’s order, including interest, so as to warrant recovery proceedings.

Whether the Controlling and Appellate Authorities’ refusal to initiate recovery disclosed an error warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court considered the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, under which the Controlling Authority had ordered payment of gratuity and interest, and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which confer the High Court’s judicial-review and supervisory jurisdiction.

The judgment identifies no specific provision of the Act or cited precedent.

The operative principle applied was that, where the authorities’ findings on payment are supported by the record and disclose no error of law or fact, the High Court will not interfere in its writ or supervisory jurisdiction.

The Court found that the employer had deposited the principal gratuity amount on 16 September 2013 and that the subsequent payments—including ₹1,33,124 on 7 October 2014, ₹1,90,177 on 16 March 2018, and ₹82,172 toward interest—satisfied the amount due under the original order.

It accepted the authorities’ assessment that no further sum remained payable and found that they had considered the relevant documents and given proper reasons.

Accordingly, it found no legal or factual error justifying intervention under Articles 226 and 227.

The petition was dismissed, notice discharged, and no order as to costs was made.