ORDER The Court 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner namely, M/s B.C.C. Ltd. has challenged the order dated 13.4.2000 passed by Regional Labour Commissioner, (Central), Dhanbad and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972. The short question falls for consideration is as to whether with-holding of payment of Gratuity on the ground of employee not vacating quarter after superannuation is justified. 3. Facts of the instant case is that respondent No. 3 superannuated on 30.6.97 from the service of the petitioner. Petitioner-management sanctioned the gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- vide Office Order dated 14.8.97 and an account payee cheque dated 20.11.97 was prepared for payment to the employee on production of no demand certificate. It appears that when gratuity amount was not paid respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 18.11.97 requested the petitioner for release of the Gratuity amount and also allow him to retain the quarter. However, respondent No. 3 vacated the quarter on 2.5.98 and thereafter he was paid gratuity amount on 31.7.98. Since the gratuity amount was not paid within 30 days from the date of Superannuation respondent No. 3 made a claim on 20.1.99 before the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, for payment of interest on the gratuity amount. Both the authorities have held that since the gratuity amount was not paid within time provided in the law, petitioner-management is liable to pay interest amount. 4. Mr. A.K. Mehta. learned counsel for the petitioner put heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Union of India v. K. Balakrishna Nambiar" (1998) Lab IC-2993) and submitted that if the employee fails to vacate the quarter after superannuation then no interest on Gratuity amount is payable. Mr. Mehta however, has not disputed the provisions of law that the gratuity amount is payable within 30 days from the date of superannuation and it can not be with-held on any ground or subject to fulfillment of any condition. 5. As noticed above, petitioner superannuated on 30.6.97, the gratuity amount was sanctioned on 14.8.97 and the cheque was prepared but the same was not paid to the respondent No. 3 on the plea that petitioner did not vacate the quarter. 5. As noticed above, petitioner superannuated on 30.6.97, the gratuity amount was sanctioned on 14.8.97 and the cheque was prepared but the same was not paid to the respondent No. 3 on the plea that petitioner did not vacate the quarter. From perusal of the letter dated 18.11.97 written by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner it appears that it was categorically stated in the said letter that atleast 80% of the gratuity amount should be released in favour of respondent No. 3 and 20% be retained by way of security for the occupation of the quarter by him. It is worth to mention here that by the said letter request was made by the respondent No. 3 to allow him to retain the quarter for certain period and that request was accepted by the management. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner ought to have released atleast 80% of the Gratuity amount to respondent No. 3. It is rather surprising that even the penal interest which was imposed upon the petitioner for occupation of the quarter was modified and normal rent was charged from him. In that view of the matter, the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the above reserved judgment does not at all apply in the present case. 6. I do not find any illegality in the order impugned passed by the respondent-authority. There is no merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed. 7. Appeal dismissed.