JUDGMENT (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) Petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 30.10.2009 issued by respondent no.3 whereby it is held that an amount of Rs.2,01,988/- is required to be withheld pending decision of appeal before the Sales Tax authority. The petitioner received an amount of Rs.2,78,011/- out of the total amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner who retired on 30.6.2008. 2. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner along with the Accountant is answerable for non-filing of the Return for the years 1995-1997. The Sales Tax Department, therefore, imposed penalty. Appeal against the said order is pending before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Amravati. 3. Admittedly, no show cause notice or the enquiry conducted against the petitioner during his service period for the alleged non-filing of Return of the year 1995-1997. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents never filed any Sales Tax Return till 2008. Perusal of the proceedings itself shows that subsequent years returns were also filed when the petitioner was in service. The Sales Tax Department has imposed the penalty and the respondents want to recover the same from the petitioner. This action, in our view, is unsustainable basically for want of specific provision under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and of any service conditions. The respondents' case that it falls within the ambit of Section 4(1)(a) of the Gratuity Act to forfeit certain amount of gratuity. This is not the case which falls within the ambit of those provisions. The alleged negligence even, if any, cannot be a reason now to invoke undisclosed power of recovery from the gratuity amount in such fashion without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. It is after thought and without any foundation of law. 4. Even otherwise, non-filing of the return of the respondent/corporation cannot be a reason to single out one or two Officers of the respondents. Subsequent filing of the return and the reason behind the same just cannot be overlooked and considered by the Court for the first time in writ petition. Their justification, if any, for non-filing of the return or for late filing of the return needs to be adjudicated under the procedure and the provisions of the relevant law. Same is pending, as recorded above. Their justification, if any, for non-filing of the return or for late filing of the return needs to be adjudicated under the procedure and the provisions of the relevant law. Same is pending, as recorded above. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking such drastic action, in our view, is unsustainable for want of specific provisions, apart from the breach of principles of natural justice. 5. The submission that the amount would be returned and paid to the petitioner once the case is over, is also unsustainable. The retention of said amount itself is without jurisdiction and authority. The promise to return the amount after conclusion of the proceedings is of no use. There is no legal justification or a ground on record of the respondents to take such drastic action and withholding of the gratuity amount of the retired person who is seriously ill. The petitioner is legally entitled to the same immediately after his retirement as per the law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the illegal withholding of gratuity amount be directed to be paid along with penal interest, as observed in State of Kerala & ors. v. M. Padmanabhan Nair – (1985) 1 SCC 429 . Having once held that the action of the respondents withholding gratuity amount is illegal and impermissible, we are inclined to observe that the petitioner is entitled to recover the balance amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 30.7.2008 (one month after the date of retirement, i.e. 30.6.2008). Hence, we make the following order. ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 30.10.2009 is quashed and set aside. (iii) Petitioner is entitled to recover balance amount of gratuity with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 30.7.2008. (iv) Respondents to deposit with the Registry of this Court balance amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 30.7.2008 within three weeks from today. (v) Registry to release the amount with accrued interest so deposited by the respondents on the application of the petitioner. (vi) Rule made absolute accordingly. (vii) There shall be no order as to costs.