Judgment : 1. organizations, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD). However, his levels of morality appear to be totally disproportionate. The employees of the TTD formed a cooperative bank, the second respondent herein. The Executive Officer of the TTD is the Ex-officio Chairman of the second respondent. The petitioner raised Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as additional housing loan and Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) as general loan from the second respondent bank. As against this, he repaid Rs.7,967/- (Rupees seven thousand nine hundred and sixty seven only) and Rs,2,200 (Rupees two thousand two hundred only) respectively. He retired from service on 30.6.2000. There was due of about Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) by the time he retired. The respondents deducted that amount from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. Initially, he approached the District Consumer Forum and his case was dismissed. Therefore, he filed Writ Petition No.11123 of 2003 complaining of the said deduction. The Writ Petition was disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to make a representation and the respondents were directed to pass a detailed order. The petitioner made such representation on 04.7.2003. The Executive Officer passed an order dated 03.9.2003 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. The petitioner contends that the second respondent is an independent and different entity and the Devasthanam does not have any legal right to deduct the amount, due to the second respondent. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner obtained loans and the instalments were deducted till he became the Drawing Officer of the unit. According to them, the petitioner stopped deduction of the instalments from his salary by misusing his capacity as Drawing Officer. Reference is made to an undertaking furnished by him enabling the respondents to deduct the amount due, if any, by the time he retires, from the gratuity, provident fund and if necessary, by proceeding against the properties belonging to him. Heard Sri P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M. Adinarayana Raju, learned Counsel for the respondents. It is rather unfortunate that a person of the stature of Deputy Executive Officer of the Devasthanam has searched for excuses to avoid payment of the amount, admittedly borrowed by him from the second respondent, the TTD Employees Cooperative Bank Limited, of which he is a Member. It is rather unfortunate that a person of the stature of Deputy Executive Officer of the Devasthanam has searched for excuses to avoid payment of the amount, admittedly borrowed by him from the second respondent, the TTD Employees Cooperative Bank Limited, of which he is a Member. Instead of standing as an example for other employees to emulate, he has resorted to every possible means to avoid payment. The petitioner does not dispute that he borrowed Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) from the second respondent bank. Out of that, Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) was deducted from his salary till 1998. No deductions were effected from his salary thereafter. The only reason is that he became the Drawing Officer of the unit and he avoided deduction with a sinister motive. Thereby committed default in payment of the instalments. By the time he retired, the balance of the principal and accrued interest was about Rs.45,000/-(Rupees forty five thousand only). The petitioner does not dispute that he gave an undertaking to the second respondent and permitted it to effect deductions from the gratuity, provident fund, etc., in case any amount remained unpaid, by the time he retired. Since substantial amount remained unpaid by the time he retired, the recovery was effected. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even if he is due to pay the amount to the second respondent, the latter has to file a suit and effect recovery and there is no basis for deduction of the amount from the gratuity. It only shows the brazenness on the part of the petitioner in throwing challenge both to his former employer and the bank, which extended timely help to him. It is on account of the persons like him, that the reputation of the institutions suffer and the other people find justification to commit default or to dupe the financial institutions. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Mohammadd Shabbir Nadvi v. Jamia Milia Islamia (1996 (72) FLR 236 (Del.)), wherein it was held that the gratuity is not a bounty and the same cannot be withheld by an employer. There, it did not exist any arrangement in that case similar to the one in the present case. There, it did not exist any arrangement in that case similar to the one in the present case. The petitioner, in unequivocal terms executed an undertaking to the effect that the respondents can deduct the amount due towards loan from the gratuity, provident fund etc. Another contention advanced by the petitioner is that the amount due to the second respondent was time barred. It is well settled that if the creditor comes into possession of an amount due from the borrower, even under time barred transaction he can withheld that. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis for the claim of the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.