Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The appellant preferred the writ petition for payment of retiral benefit. Having denied such right, he has challenged the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. 2. As this appeal can be disposed of on a short point. It is not necessary to discuss all the facts except the relevant one as mentioned here under:- (i) The appellant was working in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "Electricity Board") as a Supervisor since 29th January, 1960. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical) and when he retired on 31st of July, 1992, he was working at Kundha under the control of the Superintending engineer (Generation), T.N.E.B., Kundah, Ooty, In 1994, he filed a writ petition, alleging that he retired in July, 1992, but he was not paid the terminal benefits including pension. It was pointed out that the Authority had already ordered to commute the pension by an order dated 27. 1992 and also passed the order sanctioning the other benefits. He claimed that he was entitled for pension with effect from 1st August, 1992 and further benefit of Death-cum-retirement gratuity amounting to Rs.66,859/-, commutation of pension amounting to Rs.84,850/- apart from T.A., Medical reimbursement and pay arrears amounting to Rs.40,000/-. (ii) The petition was opposed by the Electricity Board. One of the ground taken was that the appellant had already been paid a sum of Rs.55,886/-on account of refund of final credit balance in the General Provident Fund, refund of subscription with interest in Family Security fund and refund of subscription with interest in Special Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity. It was then pointed out that even the first months pension amounting to Rs.3,261/- was paid vide cheque No.934782 dated 8. 1992. The Board admitted that the other benefits payable to him were Rs.66,859/- on account of Death-cum-retirement Gratuity; Rs.2,018/- plus D.A. by way of pension; Rs.1,250/-plus D.A. by way of family pension and Rs.84,350/- by way of commutation of pension. They however denied the claim of the appellant that he was entitled to Rs.40,000/-on account of Tour advance, medical reimbursement and pay arrears. They claim that the amount would come to Rs.20,008/-. They however denied the claim of the appellant that he was entitled to Rs.40,000/-on account of Tour advance, medical reimbursement and pay arrears. They claim that the amount would come to Rs.20,008/-. (iii) The relief was denied and opposed by the Electricity Board on the ground that the appellant, while serving at Ennore, was elected as Secretary of Ennore Thermal Power Station Staff Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Limited, Ennore (hereinafter referred to as "Society"). It was alleged that the Society had intimated by letter dated 26th August, 1992 that the appellant had misappropriated the Societys fund to the tune of Rs.15,64,898.95, which sum was ascertained after conducting necessary enquiry under the Co-operative Societies Act. It was reiterated that it was essential for the payment of pension that the dues by the retiring persons are ascertained from all his previous stations and then alone, the pension order could be made. This obviously included the dues to the Society also. Having noticed the aforesaid facts and the stand taken by the Electricity Board, learned single Judge rejected the relief. 3. Similar stand was taken by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Electricity Board even before this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the Society informed that in the proceedings, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society has already passed an order to recover the amount from the appellant. 4. Admittedly, the Society was one registered under the Societies Registration Act and it has nothing to do with the Electricity Board. It is neither a wing of the Electricity Board nor any of its department. 5. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board could not lay hand on any of the law or guideline to suggest that the Authorities can withhold the post retirement benefits, gratuity etc. if any amount is due from its employees to a third party. In the absence of any such law or guideline, we are of the view that the Electricity Board cannot withhold the retirement benefits and other dues to which the employees are entitled to on the ground that some amount is payable to a third party who has no connection with the Electricity Board. 6. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 11. 6. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 11. 2001 passed by the learned single Judge and remit the matter to the respondent and authorities of the Electricity Board with a direction to pay to the appellant the rest of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled with 8% interest to be calculated from the date of retirement till the amount is paid. In case the admitted dues are not paid within two months, the Electricity Board will be liable to pay the cost of Rs.20,000/- in addition to interest. 7. Insofar as third respondent is concerned, it is open to them to recover their dues, if any, from the appellant in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.