RAJESH TANDON, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties at length. ( 2 ) BY the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed, for the issue of writ, order or direction in the nature of certtiorari quashing the order dated 26/12/1996 passed by the Controlling Authority/ Deputy labour Commissioner, Meerut under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent No. 2 sri M. L. Sharma filed a complaint under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, before the controlling Authority under Payment of gratuity Act, Meerut with the allegations that he was retired from BHEL after completing 30 years of service on 24/09/1995. He was getting salary of Rs. 3,524. 76 at the time of his retirement. He prayed for a direction to the petitioner BHEL for payment of gratuity to him with interest. ( 4 ) PETITIONER BHEL has filed objections and contested the claim petition. The main contention of the petitioner BHEL was that Sri k. L. Sharma has illegally constructed his house over the land of the Company and as such his gratuity was forfeited by the BHEL. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. After hearing both the parties the Controlling Authority has awarded a sum of Rs. 61,005. 46 along with interest in favour of employee Sri M. L. Sharma vide judgment and order dated 22/04/1998. Aggrieved against which the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner BHEL. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 2 is not entitled for the gratuity as he has encroached upon the land of BHEL and has done misconduct for which he was also charge sheeted. The petitioner has claimed that he has a right to withhold gratuity amount of the workman, till he vacates the land of the petitioner. ( 6 ) IT is well settled that pension and i gratuity are no longer a bounty. The petitioner has claimed that he has a right to withhold gratuity amount of the workman, till he vacates the land of the petitioner. ( 6 ) IT is well settled that pension and i gratuity are no longer a bounty. It has been held in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, air 1985 SC 356 : 1985 (1) SCC 429 : 1985-I-LLJ-530 as under at 530 of LLJ:"pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment. Usually the delay occurs by reason of non-production of the LPC (Last Pay certificate) and the NLC (No Liability certificate) from the concerned Departments but both these documents pertain to matters records whereof would be with the concerned government Departments. Since the date of retirement of every Government servant is very much known in advance we fail to appreciate why the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of these two documents should not be completed at least a week before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amount could be made to the Government servant on the date he retires or on the following day and pension at the expiry of the following month. The necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over emphasized and it would not be unreasonable to direct that the liability to pay penal interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. " ( 7 ) AS far as the contention of the petitioner regarding unauthorised occupation of the petitioner's land by the respondent No. 2 is concerned, petitioner may initiate proceedings according to law for the eviction of the respondent no. 2 from the land in dispute but he has no right to withhold the amount of gratuity payable to the workman on such pretext. ( 8 ) THE Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act, Meerut has rightly passed the order granting gratuity in favour of the petitioner. 2 from the land in dispute but he has no right to withhold the amount of gratuity payable to the workman on such pretext. ( 8 ) THE Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act, Meerut has rightly passed the order granting gratuity in favour of the petitioner. I find no illegality or irregularity in the findings arrived at by the authority concerned. ( 9 ) THE writ petition lacks merit and no interference can be made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are directed to release the gratuity forthwith, failing which the respondent shall be entitled to the interest in accordance with law. ( 10 ) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .