M.G. Sewlikar, J. (Member (J))

Challenge in this application is to the order of the respondents refusing release of amount of gratuity of the applicant on account of his voluntary retirement.

Shorn of details, facts can be stated as under:

1. The applicant was appointed as GR I/Carpenter on 28th August, 1998 in Railway Department. The applicant had put in 32 years of clean and unblemished service. On 25th September, 2013 the applicant had completed 32 years of service. He, therefore, applied for voluntary retirement to be effective from 31st December, 2013. On 26th December, 2013 the competent authority i.e. Assistant Workshop Manager sanctioned the application for voluntary retirement of the applicant vide the order of even date. However, the applicant was not paid pension, gratuity, leave pay. The applicant personally visited the office of the respondents and requested them to release pension and other benefits. On 20th April, 2015, the applicant submitted his representation requesting the respondents to release monthly pension, gratuity and other retrial benefits. The respondents turned down the representation of the applicant vide order dated 2nd July, 2015 informing the applicant that since the applicant did not communicate the respondents about the institution of Criminal Proceedings against the applicant and the arrest of the applicant in this Criminal Proceeding the amount of gratuity cannot be released. On 4th October 2018 applicant issued legal notice through his counsel for the release of pension, amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits to the applicant with interest within 10 days from the receipt of legal notice. Despite this, the respondents did not release pension, did not release gratuity and other retiral benefits. The applicant has therefore, filed this application for directions to the respondents to pay amount of gratuity with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum, leave pay encashment, arrears payable to him.

2. Respondents filed reply. They contended that the application for voluntary retirement of the applicant was allowed. At the time of allowing the application of the applicant for voluntary retirement, the respondents were not aware of institution of an FIR against the applicant under section 302, 307, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and section 3, 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. The applicant did not inform the respondents about his arrest and about his remand to the police and judicial custody. The applicant was in the custody from 5th December, 2013 to 30th April 2014. Therefore, as per DCRG Rules, applicant is not entitled to gratuity as a criminal proceeding is pending against the applicant. If the applicant had informed the respondents about the lodging of the FIR and his arrest, the respondents would have been able to take an appropriate decision on his application of Voluntary Retirement.

3. It is further their contention that the application suffers from delay and latches. The original cause of action arose on 10th July, 2015 but the applicant filed this application in the month of March, 2020 i.e. after a delay of more than 4 years. The applicant has not given cogent reasons for the condonation of delay in his application for the same. In terms of Rule 10(A) to (C) of Railway Service (Pension) Rule, 1993, when departmental proceedings or criminal case is pending against an employee such an employee is entitled to provisional pension only. Since Criminal Proceedings i.e. Session Case No. 2300027/2014 is pending in Vasai Court before the Additional Sessions Judge, applicant is not entitled to gratuity. They have therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the application.

4. I have heard Mr. Vishal Shirke, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Mr. Vishal Shirke, submitted that on retirement, employer is not within his right to withhold the amount of gratuity. Gratuity can be withheld only if any loss is occasioned to the employer on account of actions on the part of the employee. Pendency of a Criminal Case cannot be a ground for withholding gratuity.

6. He further submitted that the applicant is alleged to have committed offence under section 302, 307 120-B of IPC. Applicant has not committed misappropriation or fraud. Payment of gratuity does not depend on the discretion of the Government. Gratuity is not a bounty. It is earned by the employee by rendering long, faithful and unblemished service. Applicant is neither convicted in departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings. Therefore, the respondents ought not to have withhold the gratuity. Admittedly on the date on which the applicant retired voluntarily, the applicant was in custody on account of his arrest in connection with Session Case No. 2300027/2014 registered with Vasai Police Station.

7. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was arrested on 5th December, 2013. It was the bounden duty of the applicant to inform the department about his arrest but the applicant did not do so. At the time of taking decision on his application for voluntary retirement, the respondents were not aware about the registration of an FIR against the applicant under serious offence like 302 of Indian Penal Code and about the arrest of the applicant. Had the applicant informed the respondents, respondents would not have taken the decision on the application for voluntary retirement of the applicant. In term of DCRG Rules applicant is not entitled to gratuity if any Criminal Case or departmental enquiry is pending against the applicant. Since departmental enquiry and Criminal Case both are pending against the applicant he is not entitled to gratuity. She further submits that the applicant has committed delay in approaching the Tribunal. The application for voluntary retirement was allowed on 26th December, 2013. His representation was rejected on 2nd July, 2015. Still the applicant did not approach the Tribunal immediately. He made the instant application in the year 2020 i.e. more than 4 and a half years. No sufficient cause is made out for condonation of the delay. The application, therefore, hopelessly barred by limitation. Therefore, the application deserves outright rejection.

8. Mr. Vishal Shirke, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that payment of pensionary benefits is a continuous cause of action. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is delay in approaching this Tribunal. Mr. Vishal Shirke, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following orders/judgments:

(i), Shri Prabhu Lal Vs. Union of India & Ors., OA No. 264/2009 with MA No. 1681/2009, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench. Dated: 24th November, 2009.

(ii) Manish Kumar Mahaveer Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. OA No. 585/2018, Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. Dated: 09th September, 2022.

(iii) Radhey Shyam Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13894/2009, Dated: 3rd August, 2009.

(iv) Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh,: (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648 [LQ/SC/2008/1658] . Dated: 13th August, 2008.

(v) Union Bank of India & Ors. Vs. C.G. Ajay Babu & Ors., : (2018) 9 Supreme Court Cases 529 [LQ/SC/2018/995] .

9. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following orders/judgments:

(i) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Seshachalam, Case No. Appeal (Civil) 1938 of 2007. Supreme Court of India. Dated 18th September, 2007.

(ii) Union of India Vs. M.K. Sarkar, Civil Appeal No. 8151/2009 (Arising out of SLP [C] No. 15031 of 2006). Supreme Court of India. Dated: 8th December, 2009.

(iii) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Ghanshyam Dass & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4369/2006. Supreme Court of India. Dated: 17th February, 2011.

(iv) State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sri Shi Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 7328-7329 of 2013 (Arising our of SLP (C) Nos. 15197-98 of 2012), Supreme Court of India. Dated: 23rd August, 2013.

(v) Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu, Civil Appeal No. 1941/2014 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 15530 of 2013). Supreme Court of India. Dated: 10th February, 2014.

(vi) S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Supreme Court of India. Dated: 6th September, 1989.

(vii) State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors. (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 267 [LQ/SC/1996/1401] .

(viii) D.C.S. Negi Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2018) 16 Supreme Court Cases 721 [LQ/SC/2011/371] .

(ix) Rashmi Sinha Vs. The General Manager & Ors. OA No. 63/2018, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench. Dated: 24th September, 2019.

(x) Shri Prem Prakash Vs. Union of India & Ors. OA No. 1109/2014, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench. Dated: 16th April, 2015.

(xi) Umesh Kumar Vs. Union of India. OA No. 2155/2011. Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench. Dated 22nd July, 2011.

(xii) State of Orissa Vs. Pyarimohan Samantaray And Ors. Supreme Court of India. Dated: 3rd November, 1976.

10. I have carefully considered the submissions of counsels of both the parties. It is not in dispute that the applicant had applied for voluntary retirement to be effective from 25th September, 2013 and by order dated 26th December, 2013 he was permitted to retire voluntarily. It is also not in dispute that the applicant was arrested on 5th December, 2013 and was in custody till 30th April 2014. Since the applicant was arrested, his pension and gratuity were with held by invoking rule 9 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Rule 9.1 reads as under:

"9. Right of the President to without or withdraw pension.

(1) The president reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Railway, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon reemployment after retirement;

Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed.

Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of rupees three hundred seventy five per mensem."

11. Grave misconduct has been defined in explanation (b) of Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 thus:

(b)"grave misconduct" includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch plan, model, article, note, documents or information, such as is mentioned in section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) which was obtained while holding office under the Government so as to prejudicially affect the interests of the general public or security of the State."

12. Thus for invoking the powers under Rule 9, it has to be shown that the applicant was found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service in any departmental or judicial proceedings. The rule therefore, contemplates that pension can be withheld only if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in any departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings. The definition of grave misconduct narrated above discloses that grave misconduct includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch plan model, article, note, document or information as is mentioned in Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act which was obtained while holding the office under the government so as to prejudicially affect the interests of the public or the security of the state. Applicant is charged for commission of offence under section 302, 307 120-B of IPC. He is not charged with grave misconduct as is defined in explanation B of rule 8. Moreover, the pensioner is required to be convicted in departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings. The Judicial proceedings i.e. Session Case No. 2300027/2014 are yet not concluded. Therefore, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents in withholding the pension was just and proper. In the case of Union of India Vs. C.G. Ajay Babu & Anr. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 19 thus:

"19. In the present case, there is no conviction of the respondent for the misconduct which according to the Bank is an offence involving moral turpitude. Hence, there is no justification for the forfeiture of gratuity on the grounds stated in the order dated 20-4-2004 that the "misconduct proved against you amounts to acts involving. moral turpitude." At the risk of redundancy, we may state that the requirement of the statute is not the proof of misconduct of acts involving moral turpitude but the acts should constitute an offence involving moral turpitude and such offence should be duly established in a court of law."

13. This clearly shows that for invoking powers under rule 9 (supra) the pensioner has to be convicted for grave misconduct. This rule has fallen for consideration before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (supra). In this case an FIR under section 307 of IPC was lodged against the petitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings the petitioner came to be retired on attaining the age of superannuation. In Pare 7 The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court made following observations:

"Normally, as urged by the learned Standing Counsel, "Judicial Proceedings" would also include a criminal trial. However, the meaning to a word has to be given keeping in mind the intention of the legislature and the object which it sought to achieve while using it. A reading of the aforesaid provision shows that "judicial proceedings" has been used for the purpose of any proceedings" relating to the conduct of the Government Servant. One of the main object of withholding gratuity is to compensate the Government the loss caused by the Government servant in this functioning as such. In the present case the criminal case relates to two individuals and the trial cannot be in any manner fix responsibility of any loss to the Government. In fact, there is no case set up in the counter-affidavit that the decision in the pending criminal trial between two individuals would in any way enable the Government to realize any alleged loss. In fact no loss has even been attributed to the petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bangali Babu Misra v. State of U.P. has considered the effect of the Government Order which has been incorporated in the Rules and has held that mere pendency of criminal proceedings would not authorise withholding of post retiral benefits including gratuity. The aforesaid decision has been followed subsequently in the case of Mahesh Bal Bhardwaj v. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd."

14. This Clearly shows that pension cannot be withheld without there being any conviction against the applicant. The conviction should be for grave misconduct or negligence. In the case at hand, applicant is facing trial under section 302, 307 120-B of Indian Penal Code. He is not facing trial for grave misconduct or negligence. Therefore, action of withholding of gratuity cannot be countenanced.

15. It is a settled principle of law that upon superannuation a government servant would become entitled to retiral dues including pension.

16. In the case of Manish Kumar Mahaveer Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) Single Bench of this Tribunal held in para 13 thus:

"Upon Superannuation a Government servant normally would become entitled to payment of his retirement dues including pension. The normal rule is that upon superannuation of an employee, the relationship of master and servant comes to end and in such a situation it is not open the employer to take any disciplinary action against the employee. However, the same is permissible provided the service rules applicable to the employee provide for such a contingency. To deal with cases where either departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings are pending, or in contemplation at the time of retirement of a Government servant, Rules 9 and 69 of the Pension Rules have been framed. Rule 9(1) preserves the right of the President to withhold the pension or gratuity or both either in full or in part, to withdraw the pension in full or in part, either permanently or a specific period, and to order recovery from the pension or gratuity of the whole or part of the any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, provided that the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service in any departmental or judicial proceedings. The two proviso to Rule 9(1) regulate and limit this power of the President."

17. From the above, the principle that can be culled out is that a pensioner on his superannuation is entitled to pension and other retiral benefits. In normal course upon superannuation master and servant relationship cases and in such a contingency it is not open to the employer to take any disciplinary action against the employee. However in view of Rule 9(1) right to withhold the pension is reserved provided it meets the parameteres as laid down in Rule 9(1). Unless a Government servant is convicted for grave misconduct his pension cannot be withheld. Pendency of criminal proceedings is not a ground for withholding the pension. Therefore, it was not permissible for the respondents to withhold the pension only on the ground that the applicant was arrested on 5th December, 2013 under section 302, 307 and 120-B of IPC.

18. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant did not inform the respondents about the pendency of a criminal case and about his arrest. If this information had been given to the respondents, the respondents would not have proceeded with the application of the applicant for voluntary retirement. I am not impressed with her submissions. The applicant was arrested on 5th December, 2013 and was in police custody and thereafter in judicial custody till 4th April, 2014. Therefore, it might not have been possible for him to inform the respondents about his arrest.

19. The position that emerges is that pendency of a criminal proceedings is not a ground for withholding the pension. For withholding pension under Rule 9(1), conviction for grave misconduct in a departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings is a must. In the case at hand these parameters are not met and therefore, the action of the respondents in withholding the pension of the applicant is wholly unsustainable. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any judgment taking a different view.

20. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant committed delay of 5 years in approaching the Tribunal. She submitted that the cause of action for filing the application had arisen in the year 2015 when this application for release of pension was rejected. She submitted that the applicant had filed this application in the month of March, 2020 for getting pension in this Tribunal. At that time he could have made the prayer for release of gratuity. Since he did not do so, the claim of the application is barred by limitation. For this purpose she placed reliance on the following orders/judgments:

(i) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Seshachalam (supra) in which it has been observed thus:

"The said Government Order further stipulated that undertaking should be given by the seniors getting up-gradation of their pay with their juniors in the Finance Department in the format enclosed to the effect that they accept the terms and conditions thereto. Respondents before us, save and except R. Ragothaman in CA No. 1955 of 2007 indisputably had retired much prior to issuance of the said Government Order dated 29.5.1998. They also made representations before the appellant demanding fixation of their pay at par with their juniors in the Finance Department. As the said request was not acceded to, a large number of original applications were filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. By a common judgment pronounced on 20.1.2004, the Tribunal dismissed the said applications opining that the same were barred by limitation. It was held that the applicants having retired long back and having filed applications between 1998 to 2003 and the promoters having retired as Under Secretaries, Deputy Secretaries and Joint Secretaries and in some cases as Additional Secretaries, they should have raised the dispute long back when their juniors had been given promotions in the Finance Department and as the original applications were filed after 20 years, the same could not be entertained."

(ii) Union of India Vs. M.K. Sarkar (Supra) in which following observations have been made:

"When a belated representation in regard to a "stale' or "dead' issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the Court/Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision can not be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead' issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches. A Court or Tribunal, before directing 'consideration' of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a 'live' issue or whether it is with reference to a 'dead' or 'stale' issue. If it is with reference to a Mead' or 'state' issue or dispute, the court/Tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or Tribunal deciding to direct 'consideration' without itself examining of the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect."

(iii) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Ghanshyam Dass & Ors. (Supra) In which it is held as under:

"The principle laid down in K.L. Shephard (supra) that it is not necessary for every person to approach the court for relief and it is the duty of the authority to extend the benefit of a concluded decision in all similar cases without driving every affected person to court to seek relief would apply only in the following circumstances:

a) where the order is made in a petition filed in a representative capacity on behalf of all similarly situated employees;

b) where the relief granted by the court is a declaratory relief which is intended to apply to all employees in a particular category, irrespective of whether they are parties to the litigation or not;

c) where an order or rule of general application to employees is quashed without any condition or reservation that the relief is restricted to the petitioners before the court; and

d) where the court expressly directs that the relief granted should be extended to those who have not approached the court."

(iv) Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu (Supra), In which it is held thus:

"Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The cour should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at its own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances in ordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant-a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does not bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis."

(vii) S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra), it which it has been held thus:

"We are of the view that the cause of action shall be taken to arise not from the date of the original adverse order but on the date when the order of the higher authority where a statutory remedy is provided entertaining the appeal or representation is made and where no such order is made, though the remedy has been availed of, a six months' period from the date of preferring of the appeal or making of the representation shall be taken to be the date when cause of action shall be taken to have first arisen."

21. Ms. Vishal Shirke, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the payment of gratuity is not a bounty but it is a right earned by the applicant by virtue of his rendering of a continuous service. He submitted that it is a statutory right to get gratuity. Non-payment of gratuity is a recurring cause of action. For this purpose he placed reliance on the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh (Supra), In which following observations were made as under:

"To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."

22. Mr. Vishal Shirke, learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the respondents has not raised the point of limitation in its reply. Therefore, the respondents precluded from raising this point. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that even if the respondents failed to raise the point in its affidavit-in-reply still the point can be gone into by the court. For this purpose she placed reliance on the case of Umesh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Supra), in which it is held thus:

"There is another reason why the OA is liable to be dismissed. This is because of limitation. The DOPT Scheme Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993 applicable to the applicant under which benefits were given to him, was issued on 10.09.1993. Thus, for any grievance with reference to the benefits provided, the cause of action would be taken to have arisen in September, 1993. However, the OA has been filed on 6.07.2011, after a lapse of over 15 years. Any claim with reference to this Scheme cannot be allowed to be raised now because of the bar of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. In recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of D.C.S. negi v. Union of India & Ors. Decided on 07.03.2011 in SLP (C) No. 7956/2011 (CC No. 3709/2011) the Apex Court while dismissing the Appeal has observed that the Administrative Tribunal established under the Act is duty bound to first consider whether the application is within limitation, and an application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21(3). The Apex Court also observed as follows: Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain this omission by pointing out that in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, no such objection was raised but we have felt impressed. In our view, the Tribunal cannot abdicate its duty to act in accordance with the statute under which it is established, and the fact that an objection of limitation is not raised by the respondent/non applicant is not at all relevant. Thus the OA filed in the year 2011 for a cause of action that arose in the year 1993 would attract limitation. Only if there is cause of action which needs to be taken up by relaxing and condoning the delay, can the same be considered under Section 21. The present case is, however, not a fit case for condonation of delay"

23. It is true that the applicant had preferred OA No. 71/2020 for getting pension. At that time, he did not pray for release of gratuity. It is also a settled principle of law that even if point of limitation is not raised in the written statements, court cannot abdicate its duty of ascertaining whether the OA is within limitation. Therefore, the question of limitation will have to be gone into. Pension and Pensionary benefits are a continuous cause of action. It is a continued wrong. It is of a recurring nature. Therefore, when there is a continued wrong question of limitation goes on the back seat. When there is a recurring cause of action, question of limitation does not arise. Release of gratuity is a continuous cause of action. Therefore, it can be said that the application is barred by limitation. The authorities relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents have no application to the facts involved in the case at hand.

24. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the claim of the applicant for release of gratuity is barred by limitation.

25. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, OA No. 465/2020 succeeds. OA No. 465/2020 is allowed. Respondents shall pay gratuity to the applicant with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum.