release the gratuity and are clearly liable to pay interest on delayed payment. 8. Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, per contra, submits that there is no delay in payment of the gratuity to the Petitioner. Relying on DoPT O.M.s dated 11.07.1979 and 22.01.1991, it is urged that in case a Government servant, against whom disciplinary/judicial proceedings are pending, is exonerated of all charges and gratuity is paid on conclusion of such proceedings, payment of gratuity will be deemed to have fallen due on the date following the date of retirement. However, in the present case though this Court quashed the FIR but it cannot be said that Petitioner was fully exonerated on conclusion of a criminal trial and therefore, the second part of the O.M. will be attracted which stipulates that if the Government servant is not fully exonerated on conclusion of disciplinary/judicial proceedings and where the Competent Authority decides to allow payment of gratuity, payment of gratuity will be deemed to have fallen due on the date of issuance of order by the Competent Authority. In such a case, interest will be payable for the period of delay beyond 3 months from the date of issue of the order of the Competent Authority. Therefore, as per the counter affidavit, payment of gratuity will be deemed to have fallen due on 24.09.2018 when the petition was allowed or thereafter and not from 28.02.2015 as contended by the Petitioner and interest liability cannot be imposed. Moreover, interest is a penalty and since Respondents were not aware of the quashing of the FIR till the filing of W.P.(C.) 66/2019, which was disposed on 08.01.2019, they cannot be saddled with the interest liability.
