1. The petitioner was working as Office Superintendent in the Office of Sub Area Manager, Bishrampur Open Cast Mines, South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) and stood superannuated on 30-11-2003 with an allotted accommodation / quarter No.1-B/220 in his favour. He applied for the amount of gratuity due to him, but was not extended the privilege of gratuity by the SECL holding that he had not vacated the quarter allotted to him and ultimately, the said quarter earlier alloted to him came to be allotted to his son with effect from 20-10-2004 though son of the petitioner was in the service of SECL with effect from the year 1995, but now, on 23-11- 2004, the petitioner was paid gratuity after deducting Rs.19,500/- towards penal rent for non-vacation of the accommodation allotted to him. The petitioner filed application before the controlling authority for payment of balance amount of Rs.19,500/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The controlling authority granted that application on 10-10-2008 directing for payment of gratuity along with interest which was assailed by the SECL by filing appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by its impugned order set aside the order granting balance amount of gratuity with interest holding that since the petitioner has not vacated the allotted accommodation, penal rent has rightly been deducted from 1-12-2003 to 23-11-2004. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied against the order of the appellate authority, this writ petition has been preferred.

2. Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would make two fold submissions, firstly, that deduction of Rs.19,500/- towards penal rent for non-vacation of the allotted accommodation is per se illegal and bad in law, as there is no provision in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act of 1972') for deducting the said amount as such the amount of gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld for non-vacation of quarter and secondly, that no penal rent from gratuity can be deducted for the said lapse, if any, on the part of the employee. Section 13 of the Act of 1972 protects the amount of gratuity even from attachment in execution of any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal court. The Act of 1972 has an overriding effect by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the said Act. Mr. Mukhopadhyay would further submit that interest on gratuity is payable by virtue of the provisions contained in the proviso to subsection (3A) of Section 7 of the Act of 1972, which provides 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 this ground. No such permission was obtained by the respondent SECL for making delayed payment of gratuity, as the amount of gratuity was paid to the petitioner only after the quarter was allotted to the petitioner's son, on 23-11-2004.

3. Mr. Vivek Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 – SECL, while vehemently opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner's conduct is not trustworthy, as he did not vacate the SECL quarter allotted to him even after his superannuation on 30-11-2003 and ultimately, the said quarter was allotted to his son on 20-10-2004 and thereafter, on 23-11-2004, the petitioner was paid gratuity after deducting the penal rent of Rs.19,500/- for non-vacation of quarter. Therefore, the petitioner is neither entitled for return of Rs.19,500/- deducted as penal rent for retaining the SECL quarter nor for interest on the said amount, as the amount of gratuity has already been paid to him on 23-11-2004.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein-above and also went though the record with utmost circumspection.

5. The first question would be, whether the a