ORDER The appellant is aggrieved by order dated 13.11.2013 passed in W.P. (S) No. 546 of 2011 whereby, the learned Single Judge has ordered that the amount of gratuity would be paid to the appellant after the appellant vacates the quarter. Insofar as, the grievance of the appellant with respect to charging of penal rent is concerned, a liberty was given to the appellant to agitate his grievance before the competent Estate Officer. 2. The appellant was appointed as Cleaner in the year, 1968 and he superannuated from service on 30.04.2005. The appellant was permitted to retain the quarter allotted to him after his retirement as per Company's policy. The appellant even after his superannuation from service did not vacate the quarter which he was permitted to retain. In these facts, the amount of gratuity due to the appellant was not released by the respondent – Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro and therefore, the appellant approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 546 of 2011. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the respondents could not have retained the amount of gratuity on the ground of retention of official quarter by the appellant inasmuch as, the retention of gratuity amount for such reason would be contrary to the statutory provision of the Payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972. Relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in “Mining and Allied Machinery Vs. Ram Ranjan Mukherjee and Ors.”, reported in 2004 (1) CHN 510 , the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has tried to distinguish the order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 15 of 2013. It is further submitted that the appellant did not give any undertaking to the respondent for retention of gratuity amount, a distinguishing fact as in the case of “Bokaro Steel Limited Vs. Shri Ram Naresh Singh and Ors.” in L.P.A No. 15 of 2013 and therefore, the respondents were bound in law to release the amount of gratuity to the appellant immediately on the appellant reaching the age of superannuation. Shri Ram Naresh Singh and Ors.” in L.P.A No. 15 of 2013 and therefore, the respondents were bound in law to release the amount of gratuity to the appellant immediately on the appellant reaching the age of superannuation. Taking an exception to the direction given by the learned Single Judge whereby the respondent – Bokaro Steel City was directed to release the gratuity amount upon the appellant vacating the official quarter, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that such a condition could not have been imposed by the learned Single Judge as it would be in the teeth of Section 4(6) of the Payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972. 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – SAIL has seriously disputed the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that in the present case also the appellant has furnished an undertaking and the order dated 14.07.2005 would itself indicate that all the benefits to an employee would be released only after vacating the official quarter. It is further submitted that the quarter was retained by to the appellant only upon the appellant giving an undertaking whereby he agreed for retention of an amount equivalent to the gratuity amount and in pursuance of the same the gratuity amount due to the appellant has been retained by the respondent – company. It is further submitted that the facts and issue in the present case are squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court in L.P.A. No. 15 of 2013. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Admittedly, the appellant superannuated from service on 30.04.2005. It is averred by the appellant in the memo of appeal itself that a letter dated 14.07.2005 was issued which indicates that the postretiral benefits were to be released after the employee vacates the quarter retained by him. The counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that upon furnishing an undertaking, the said quarter was allotted to the appellant for being retained by the appellant even after his superannuation from service. It appears that the said quarter was permitted to be retained by the appellant on payment of Rs. The counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that upon furnishing an undertaking, the said quarter was allotted to the appellant for being retained by the appellant even after his superannuation from service. It appears that the said quarter was permitted to be retained by the appellant on payment of Rs. 88/ per month for six months and thereafter, on payment of charge 2 times the said rent for next six months and subsequently, the penal rent was to be multiplied by 4, 8 and 16 times of the rent. Even after the expiry of the retention period, the appellant did not vacate the quarter so allotted to him and therefore, the gratuity amount due to the appellant was not released. The learned Single Judge has considered this aspect of the matter and rightly directed the respondents to release the gratuity amount upon the appellant vacating the quarter. We find no infirmity with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. In L.P.A. No. 15 of 2013 wherein in the light of the undertaking given by the employee thereof the amount of gratuity retained by the employer has been held justified. In paragraph 13 and 19 of the said judgment, this Court has observed: 13. “In the instant case, gratuity is withheld not as a measure of penalty or punitive. Section 4(6) of the Act will come into play only if the payment of gratuity had been withheld as a measure of punishment. As pointed out earlier, gratuity is withheld on account of the respondents voluntarily agreeing to offer the? gratuity amount as security deposit for retention of the quarters after his retirement. The payment of gratuity amount which was offered as security could be refunded only on vacation of quarters and after deduction of all the necessary dues like, rent, damage charges, electricity etc. Having voluntarily agreed to put an amount equivalent to gratuity as security deposit, the respondent cannot contend that the circumstances in Section 4(6) of the Act had not arisen.” .......................................................................... 19. “In Wazir Chand Vs. Union of India, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 596 , the exemployee unauthorisedly occupied the official quarter for which he was charged penal rent and after adjustment of dues, only balance amount of gratuity was paid to him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there was no illegality in adjusting the dues against the gratuity payable to the retired employee. Union of India, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 596 , the exemployee unauthorisedly occupied the official quarter for which he was charged penal rent and after adjustment of dues, only balance amount of gratuity was paid to him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there was no illegality in adjusting the dues against the gratuity payable to the retired employee. In the present case, in view of the fact that the respondent herein had already signed an agreement authorising the appellant-SAIL to retain the amount equivalent to the gratuity for payment of rent for the quarter, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the amount of gratuity has been illegally withheld by the appellant, is factually incorrect.” 7. We find no substance in the present Letters Patent Appeal and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.