ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner retired from the service of the respondents on 31.3.1998 but after retirement he continued the occupation of the quarter in anticipation of receiving retiral benefits. The petitioner vacated the quarter in February, 2002 and, thereafter, retiral benefits was paid in July, 2002. While making payment of retiral benefits the respondents have deducted a sum of Rs. 38,376/- by way of penal rent. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not entitled to realize penal rent for the reason that the retiral benefits has been paid only in July, 2002. The contention of the respondents is that the retiral benefits was payable only after submission of no dues certificate and on vacation of the quarter. 4. The respondents have annexed a copy of memorandum issued by the respondent-Corporation to the effect that, final -dues shall be settled only after vacating the quarter in occupation of the employee. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have also stated that the entire gratuity amount has been paid and the penal rent has not been deducted out of the gratuity amount, rather, penal rent has been recovered out of other retiral dues payable to the petitioner. 5. In my opinion, if the penal rent has been deducted out of the gratuity amount then atleast the respondents ought not to have withheld the gratuity amount because of the occupation of the quarter by the petitioner after retirement. Even the gratuity amount has been paid after four years of retirement i.e. in July, 2002 and that too without interest. The other retiral dues have also been paid to the petitioner without any interest. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was repeatedly reminded to vacate the quarter otherwise gratuity amount or other retiral dues shall be withheld. It is but natural that an employee after retirement expects immediate release of his retiral dues so that he may arrange his home- shelter for living and for spending the rest of his life. Merely because the petitioner did not vacate the quarter, the respondents ought not to have withheld the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner. 6. It is but natural that an employee after retirement expects immediate release of his retiral dues so that he may arrange his home- shelter for living and for spending the rest of his life. Merely because the petitioner did not vacate the quarter, the respondents ought not to have withheld the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner. 6. Taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and also regard being had to the fact that the retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner without any interest, the recovery of penal rent from the petitioner for the occupation of the quarter cannot be said to be justified and reasonable. 7. For the aforesaid reason this application is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the amount which has actually been deducted by way of penal rent. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be liable to pay normal rent of water charges, electricity charges etc. for the period he remained in occupation of the quarter.