JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is a retired employee of the respondent Corporation, has filed the present petition feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents in making recovery from his post-retiral dues. It is the case of the petitioner that he had retired from service on 31.8.1996 and the retiral dues have not been finalised. Only 90% (ninety percent) anticipatory pension and gratuity have been paid, however, the final settlement of the dues alongwith payment of P.P., surrender leave, Insurance amount and computation of pension were not done. The petitioner while in service was occupant of a quarter and was paying monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. It is his case that the Corporation is having different properties and the Corporation is letting out the same on rent not only to its employees but also to other persons who are not its employees. It is his case that in the instant case, the quarter is occupied by him as an ordinary tenant and it has not been allotted to him because of terms and conditions of the appointment. It has been specifically averred in para 9 of the petition that the quarter has been allotted in the normal course and the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. It is the case of the petitioner as his retiral dues were not settled he was unable to construct his house and shift to the same. However illegal penal rent is being deducted from his salary. It is his case that retiral dues cannot be withheld and no deduction from the dues are permissible Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Vinayak Rae Chavhan v. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and Others writ Petition No 841 of 1998 decided on 20.7.2000 and the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Gorakhpur University and others v. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra and others, 2001 (6) SCC 591 . Respondents have filed their return and it is submitted by them that the final pension is to be finalised by the Local Funds and Accounts Department of the State Government and the matter is pending with the said authority. It is stated by them that various amounts have been paid, details of which are contained in para 5, 3. Respondents have filed their return and it is submitted by them that the final pension is to be finalised by the Local Funds and Accounts Department of the State Government and the matter is pending with the said authority. It is stated by them that various amounts have been paid, details of which are contained in para 5, 3. However, as the pension is to be finalised by the Local Funds and Audit Department, the Corporation is not to take any further action. However, it is denied that the quarter was allotted in the normal course and the relationship of only tenant and landlord exists between the parties. On the contrary, it has been submitted that the quarter has been allotted to the employee as per the terms and conditions of appointment and house rent allowance is not being paid to the petitioner instead rent is being deducted from his salary. It is stated that he has not vacated the official quarter, penal rent is being charged as he is unauthorisedly occupying the quarter. It is stated that all payments have been released to the employee. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. From the return filed by the respondents it is seen that imposition of the retiral dues have been settled and it is only the pension which has to be finalised and the same is pending with the authorities of the State Government as the said authority is not a party before this Court no direction can be issued to the said authority, however, it is expected that the respondent shall take steps for finalising the same at an earlier date. As far as vacation of the quarter and imposition of penal rent are concerned, it is an admitted position in law that merely because quarter is not being vacated the pensionary benefits of the employee cannot be withheld nor any adjustment permissible in this regard. On the contrary the employer has to take legal action to recover possession of the said accommodation and then fix liability for imposing penal rent in accordance with the rules and regulations and it has to be quantified by giving opportunity of hearing to the employee concern. In the case of Gorakhpur University (supra) the Supreme Court has held as under: "We have carefully considered the submission on behalf of the respective parties before us. In the case of Gorakhpur University (supra) the Supreme Court has held as under: "We have carefully considered the submission on behalf of the respective parties before us. The earlier decision pertaining to this very University, reported in S.N. Mathur is that of a Division Bench, rendered after considering the principles laid down and placing reliance upon the decisions of this Court reported in R. Kapur which, in turn, relied upon earlier decisions in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanablzan Nair and Som Prakash. This Court has been repeatedly emphasizing the position 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. Withholding of quarters allotted, while in service, even after retirement without vacating the same has been viewed to be not a valid ground to withhold the disbursement of the terminal benefits. Such is the position with reference to amounts due towards provident fund, which is rendered immune from attachment and deduction or adjustment as against any other dues from the employees." It has been further stated that in the aforesaid case, the right to recover penal rent and recovery of possession has to be done in accordance with law after issuing proper show cause notice and giving opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned. The aforesaid view is also taken in the writ petition decided by this Court in the case of Vinyak Rao (supra). In view of the above, it is held that the respondents are not entitled to withhold the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on the ground that he has not vacated the quarter. The respondents are directed to take necessary steps for finalising the pensionary benefits of the petitioner as early as possible and the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @9% (nine per cent) per annum on the delayed payment. The respondents are directed to take necessary steps for finalising the pensionary benefits of the petitioner as early as possible and the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @9% (nine per cent) per annum on the delayed payment. As far as evicting the petitioner from quarter in question' and recovery of penal rent are concerned, the respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law for the purpose of taking possession of the quarter in question thereafter to recover penal rent, if permissible in accordance with rules and regulations in this regard, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear that recovery for penal rent is not permissible without following the procedure contemplated under the law for the said purpose and recovery can be affected only from such amount which is liable for attachment and recover, in view of the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Gorakhpur University (supra). In view of the above the petition is allowed with the directions as given here-in-above.