ORDER Ajit J Gunjal, J. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Company in February 1974 in the post of Graduate Assistant. Over a period of time, during his service, he was promoted to the cadre of Assistant Manager in the year 1981 and in the year 1985 he was promoted as District Manager. He continued to be a District Manager till he retired on attaining superannuation on 30.04.2004. The claim of the petitioner is that his service records during all these periods for 30 years was unblemished. The petitioner was drawing basic pay of Rs. 11,520/- and a sum of Rs. 7027/- as Dearness Allowance. Thus his total emoluments was Rs. 18,547/-. The gratuity which is payable to him is Rs. 3,21,006/-. The petitioner submits that he is also entitled for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- and odd as leave salary and another sum of Rs.20,956/- towards Insurance. Thus, according to him, the total amount payable by the respondent on he attaining superannuation is Rs.5,05,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding putting in his papers for payment of gratuity of Rs.3,21,006/-, the same has not been paid. On the contrary, a communication is issued, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A indicating that the petitioner is required to make available No Due Certificate from the places where he was working as well as he was required to give his say in respect of certain audit objections raised. Since the same is not complied and the moment it is complied, his papers relating to gratuity amount would be processed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. Mr. Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the petitioner having retired in the year 2004, his gratuity is not paid. According to him, under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the petitioner is entitled for the same and there was no justification for the respondent to withhold the same. He has further relied on a few rulings of this Court in support of his contention that notwithstanding any impediment, the gratuity amount cannot be withheld by the employer. 3. Mr. Muralidhar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that this is a case where the claim of the petitioner is denied. He has further relied on a few rulings of this Court in support of his contention that notwithstanding any impediment, the gratuity amount cannot be withheld by the employer. 3. Mr. Muralidhar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that this is a case where the claim of the petitioner is denied. Indeed, certain audit objections were raised during the period when he was working as District Manager and pursuant to Annexure-A, he was called upon to file his reply. In fact, the said communication cannot be construed as a rejection of the petitioner’s claim. Indeed, once the reply is given, the papers would be processed. He further submits that the writ petition is premature and also that there is an alternate remedy under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 4. To appreciate this contention, the concept of gratuity is required to be noticed. Indeed, gratuity certainly is no longer a bounty which is required to be distributed on retirement of an employee. Indeed, an employee is certainly entitled for the services rendered by him. It is useful to extract the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala and Others Vs. M.Padmanabha Nair reported in 1985 LLJ Page 530: “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 in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment.” Indeed, it is so. Keeping this dictum of the Apex Court in mind one will have to examine whether indeed the petitioner’s claim in the present context could be considered wherein the respondents have declined to settle the claim of the petitioner in respect of gratuity. Indeed, it is to be noticed that the petitioner, during his tenure with the respondent, for over a period of 30 years served in different capacities, as a Graduate Assistant, Assistant Manager and lastly as a District Manager from 1974 till 30.04.2004 till he attained superannuation. It is also not in disputes that the petitioner was working in several places during his tenure as Assistant Manager. It is also not in disputes that the petitioner was working in several places during his tenure as Assistant Manager. The statement of objections filed by the respondents would disclose that departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and a punishment of censure was awarded on 03.07.1995 by the disciplinary authority. In fact, the amount as claimed by the petitioner under various heads is not at all in dispute. But the moot question is whether the gratuity amount could be disbursed when certain queries have been raised by the respondent and the petitioner has not replied for the said queries. A copy of the queries raised by the respondent is to be found at Annexure-R1 which is produced along with the statement of objections. Insofar as query No. 1 is concerned, there should not be any difiiculty, inasmuch as, the amount is stated to be recovered from the Transport Contractor. So also query No.3. On these two counts indeed, the audit report would disclose that the said amount is required to be recovered from the Transport Contractor. But however, in respect of the remaining queries, i.e., query No. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, indeed, an explanation is required to be given by the petitioner. Annexure-R1 would further disclose that the queries are only for the period between 01.04.2001 and 31.03.2002, when the petitioner was working as District Manager at Dharwar. The fact that the petitioner has attained superannuation and is no longer in service does not absolve him of the responsibility of answering these queries, inasmuch as, certain excess amount has been paid on various counts to different persons. Indeed, if the petitioner were to seek permission of the respondent for perusal of the audit report, vis-a-vis the records relating to the queries, certainly there could not have been any impediment for the petitioner to answer the said queries. It is no doubt true that under Section 4 of the Act, the gratuity certainly shall be payable to the employee on the termination of his employment, after he has rendered service continuously for not less than 30 years. In fact, what is significant is there is a non-obstante clause put as rider as to in what circumstances the gratuity amount could be withheld. It could be found in sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act. In fact, what is significant is there is a non-obstante clause put as rider as to in what circumstances the gratuity amount could be withheld. It could be found in sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act. It is useful to extract the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act: “(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)- (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, willful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused; (b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited- (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.” A perusal of this provision would disclose that the gratuity of an employee whose services are terminated for any act of willful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused. The gratuity payable can also be wholly or partially forfeited if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude. Indeed we have not reached a stage where the gratuity, the legitimate entitlement of the petitioner’s claim is withheld. In fact, there is no refusal as of today on the part of the respondent to pay the petitioner his legitimate entitlement. What is essential is that the petitioner was called upon to answer certain queries raised in the audit report when he was a District Manager. Indeed, nothing prevented the petitioner from going to the spot and answering the queries. But however, the petitioner having attained superannuation in the year 2004 and after putting in his papers for payment of the amount, the communication is issued at Annexure-A on 11.08.2005 asking him to give his reply to the queries raised in the audit report. In fact, the petitioner has spent three years unnecessarily in the Court. But however, the petitioner having attained superannuation in the year 2004 and after putting in his papers for payment of the amount, the communication is issued at Annexure-A on 11.08.2005 asking him to give his reply to the queries raised in the audit report. In fact, the petitioner has spent three years unnecessarily in the Court. Indeed, Annexure-A certainly cannot be considered as a rejection of the claim of the petitioner for gratuity which could attract the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Balchandra krishnaji Kale Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported in 1999-I-LLJ 932. It is only after rejection of the claim of the petitioner a cause of action would arise to the petitioner to redress his grievance. 5. This takes us to the next question as to what would be the scope of Section 7 of the Act in the present circumstances. Indeed, sub-section (4A) of Section 7 of the Act would indicate that if there is any dispute regarding the amount of gratuity payable to an employee, the same is required to be determined after due enquiry by the appellate authority. It is no doubt true that this could be termed as an alternate remedy which certainly could have been invoked by the petitioner. But however, even for raising such a dispute before the Controlling authority there is no determination made by the respondent regarding the quantum and rejecting his claim. Hence it is too early for this Court to determine whether Section 7(4A) could be treated as an alternate remedy. 6. Indeed, it is to tbe noticed that the claim of the petitioner also includes the leave salary as well as the Insurance. 7. Having regard to what is stated above, I am of the view that the present writ petition is premature. The petitioner has presumed that his claim for gratuity is rejected, which is not so. In fact, the best option for the petitioner would be to answer the queries and invite an order, then, question the same if it were to be detrimental to his interest. 8. The petitioner is permitted to answer the queries raised by the respondent at Annexure-R1 which is produced along with the statement of objections. In fact, the best option for the petitioner would be to answer the queries and invite an order, then, question the same if it were to be detrimental to his interest. 8. The petitioner is permitted to answer the queries raised by the respondent at Annexure-R1 which is produced along with the statement of objections. But however, so far as the No Due Certificate to be collected by the petitioner that shall be the duty of the respondent themselves and the petitioner cannot be compelled to go around the places where he was working to collect the No Due Certificate to enable the respondent to process the papers for payment of gratuity. The onus on the petitioner is only to answer the queries. Insofar as the other things are concerned like no due certificate etc., are required to be done by the respondents themselves. 9. The respondent shall determine the claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity within four weeks from the date of the filing his reply to the queries. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.