JUDGMENT : I. A. ANSARI, J. The appellant herein superannuated from the service of respondent No.1, namely, the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’). 2. At the time of his retirement, the appellant was occupying, on rent, a residential quarter allotted by the Board. In terms of the Board’s resolution, dated 09.10.1997, payment of gratuity, leave encashment, etc. are to be paid to an employee only after he vacates the accommodation of the residential quarter occupied by him as an employee of the Board. Thus, vacating the residential accommodation, provided by the Board, from a condition of service for an employee to receive his retiral benefits, such as, gratuity, leave encashment, etc. Though the Board prepared the necessary paper for releasing gratuity to the appellant, the same was made payable to the appellant only upon vacating the residential quarter. The appellant did not vacate the quarter till 07.04.2009 and no sooner he vacated the quarter, gratuity was paid. While the amount of G.S.S. was paid on 02.07.2004, the amount of leave encashment was paid on 09.03.2005. 3. As far as payment of leave encashment and G.S.S. are concerned, the same cannot be said to have been belatedly paid. 4. So far as the payment of gratuity is concerned, the same was not paid by the Board till the appellant vacated the quarter in terms of the Board’s resolution, dated 09.10.1997, aforementioned. 5. Alleging delayed payment of gratuity, leave encashment and G.S.S. and seeking directions for payment of interest thereon, the appellant herein filed a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to CWJC No. 285 of 2011. 6. By order, dated 25.09.2014, as the learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition, the writ petitioner is, in appeal, before us. 7. We have heard Dr. Manoranjan Prasad Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned Additional Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Board. 8. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that the legality or validity of the Board’s resolution, dated 09.10.1997, aforementioned has not been challenged by the appellant. 9. 7. We have heard Dr. Manoranjan Prasad Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned Additional Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Board. 8. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that the legality or validity of the Board’s resolution, dated 09.10.1997, aforementioned has not been challenged by the appellant. 9. In the backdrop of the Board’s resolution, dated 09.10.1997, aforementioned, the non-payment of the gratuity, until the time the appellant vacated the quarter, cannot be said to be illegal, particularly, when the appellant knew even before the date of his superannuation that as long as he continued to occupy the residential quarter allotted to him by the Board, his gratuity will remain withheld. 10. Because of what has been discussed and pointed out above, we do not find any infirmity, legal or factual, in the conclusions reached by the learned single Judge. 11. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. : I agree.