Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Tarun Gaur, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Mandi Parishad.

2. The petitioner was working as Mandi Sahayak, a Class IV post since 1974 and the service condition of the petitioner is governed by U.P. Agriculture Produce Market Committees (Centralized) Service Regulations, 1984. The petitioner retired on 31.3.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation and after retirement the petitioner handed over charge. However, ‘No Dues Certificate’ was not issued to the petitioner, as such, the retirement dues was not paid. By letter dated 30.5.2013, the respondent No. 4, Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (Agricultural Produce Market Committee), Bareilly, mentioned that in departmental annual audit for the years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 there was audit objection number 33 pertaining to the petitioner until and unless the audit objection is removed the ‘No Dues Certificate’ cannot be issued. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent No. 3, Deputy Director (Admin./Marketing), Regional Office, State Agricultural Produce Marketing Board (U.P.) at Navin Mandi Sthal, Pilibhit Road, Bareilly, for payment of retiral benefits alongwith interest @ 18%.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the audit objection enclosed alongwith letter dated 30.5.2013 does not raise any objection pertaining to the petitioner. On the contrary, objection has been raised in respect of one Sri R.K. Suman, Mandi Inspector and the audit report directs the Mandi Parishad to initiate proceedings to recover the loss of interest from R.K. Suman. There is no such objection against the petitioner, and hence, the petitioner is entitled to post retiral benefits.

4. In rebuttal, Sri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior Counsel, submits that the Mandi Parishad has no personal grievance against the petitioner, as and when the audit objection is removed and ‘No Dues Certificate’ produced, the Mandi Parishad shall release the post retiral benefits of the petitioner.

5. Rival submissions fall for consideration.

6. The factual matrix between the parties is not in dispute, the petitioner retired on 31.3.2013, no disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner and the sole reason for withholding the post retiral benefits is audit objection for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12. A bare perusal of the audit report clearly states that Sri R.K. Suman, Mandi Inspector, is responsible for the loss of interest and Parishad was directed to recover the interest from Sri Suman. No such direction/observation was made against the petitioner. Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the gratuity cannot be withheld merely on audit objection, until and unless the conditions mentioned in sub-clause (6) of the Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are not satisfied.

7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Marjaddi v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad and others, (2014) 2 UPLBEC 1549, has held that the recovery of damages for retention of official quarter against the gratuity is illegal.

8. In the case of Gorakhpur University v. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra and others, 2001 (91) SCSLJ 247, the post retiral dues of the Professor of the University had been withheld on the ground that the Professor has retained the University’s accommodation after his retirement. The Apex Court has held that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any bounty to be distributed by the Government but are valuable rights acquired and property in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement whereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest. The Apex Court has held as follows:

“We have carefully considered the submission on behalf of the respective parties before us. The earlier decision pertaining to