JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a retired Circle Inspector, has prayed for the following reliefs: "7(a) Be pleased to admit this petition; (b) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing and setting aside the letter dated 27.3.2002, 10.7.2001 and 4.10.2001 of the respondents and be pleased to hold that since the petitioner was never transferred from Ahwa to Subir, the respondents have no right or authority to insist for recovery of amount of Rs. 66,400/- towards unauthorised occupation and market rent of the quarter; (c) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, holding that the action of the respondents of insisting upon the petitioner to furnish undertaking permitting the respondents to effect deduction of Rs. 66,400/- from the gratuity of the petitioner, is illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (d) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, directing the respondents to release the retirement dues of the petitioner including the amount of gratuity of Rs. 1,35,982/- without effecting deduction of Rs. 66,400/- as per the undertaking of the petitioner dated 15.10.2001; (e) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to grant interim direction, directing the respondents to release the retirement dues of the petitioner including gratuity amount of Rs. 1,35,982/- without effecting deduction of Rs. 66,400/-. (f) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice." 2. The facts of this case may be summarized as under: 2.1 The petitioner was appointed as a 'Talati-cum-Mantri' on 8th October 1971 by the District Panchayat, Dang. 2.2 Thereafter, on 9th July 1986, he was promoted as the Circle Inspector. On being promoted, he was posted at Ahwa. He was also provided with a government quarter. He remained at Ahwa upto 21st April 1994. Thereafter, he came to be transferred at a place called Subir, District : Dang. He decided to retain the government quarter at Ahwa. He used to travel from Ahwa to Subir everyday and for that purpose, he claimed travelling allowance. He was also provided with a government quarter. He remained at Ahwa upto 21st April 1994. Thereafter, he came to be transferred at a place called Subir, District : Dang. He decided to retain the government quarter at Ahwa. He used to travel from Ahwa to Subir everyday and for that purpose, he claimed travelling allowance. 2.3 It seems that this fact came to the notice of the Audit Department and it raised an objection in this regard. Considering the objection raised by the Audit Department, the authority concerned thought fit to withhold the amount of Rs. 66,400/- from his Gratuity on the ground that they had decided to recover the rent at the market rate for the period between 1994 and 2000. 2.4 Hence, this petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have also considered the materials on record. I have also heard Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State of Gujarat. Mr. Goutam has supported Mr. Munshaw, the learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of the Panchayat. 4. On behalf of the Panchayat, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed inter alia stating as under: "4. It is most respectfully stated that the District Dangs is constituted in the year 1972 and it is covered under hilly area and there are just 311 villages and 70 gram panchayats. Respondent No. 2 states that for better administration, the District of Dangs is divided into four divisions and each of them is headed by a Circle Inspector so that various Gram Panchayats can be properly supervised by the Circle Inspector. It is stated that in the instant case, the petitioner had joined his service as Talati on 8th October, 1971 and was placed under Dang District Panchayat in the year 1972 and later on promoted as Circle Inspector on 9th July 1986. It is submitted on 25th April 1994, the District Development Officer, Dangs District Panchayat determined the area of administration of each of four Circle Inspectors and also ordered that they should stay in their respective Head Quarters and accordingly the present petitioner was allotted Division IV and his Head Quarter was fixed at village Subir and accordingly as per provisions of Rule 433 of Bombay Civil Service Rules, he was required to stay at the Head Quarter and not entitled to any House Rent Allowance. A copy of the said order dated 25th April, 1994 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 'A' to this reply. In view of this, it is clear that there was no transfer of the petitioner, but his Head Quarter was fixed at village Subir and as per provisions of Bombay Civil Service Rules, he was not entitled to at village Ahwa in a Staff Quarter allotted by the District Panchayat. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was paid his permanent Travelling Allowance as his Head Quarter was fixed at Subir, but in the instant case he availed benefit of Permanent Travelling Allowance and unauthorisedly stayed at Ahwa and continued possession of the staff quarter allotted by the District Panchayat till 28th April, 2000. It is further stated that the petitioner was transferred from village Subir to Sham Gahan where he resumed his duty on 21st July 2000 and was required to stay at the said place as it was his Head Quarter. Respondent No. 2 states that as per provisions of Rules and Regulations, the staff members are required to stay at the Head Quarter for administrative purpose and without permission they cannot stay at a place other than the Head Quarter. It is further stated by the respondent No. 2 that as per orders dated 25th April, 1994 Ahwa, Sham Gahan, Subir and Pipri are four different Head Quarters and each of the Circle Inspector has to supervise over the functions of the Gram Panchayat within his circle. A copy of a transfer order dated 17th July 2000 through which the petitioner was transferred from village Subir to Sham Gahan and where he reported for duty on 21st July 2000 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 'B'[to this reply. 5. Respondent No. 2 craves leave to state that the petitioner continued with the possession of the staff quarter at Ahwa till 28th April 2000 and after his transfer to Sham Gaha, he was paid his House Rent Allowance. 5. Respondent No. 2 craves leave to state that the petitioner continued with the possession of the staff quarter at Ahwa till 28th April 2000 and after his transfer to Sham Gaha, he was paid his House Rent Allowance. It is humbly stated by the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner vacated the unauthorisedly occupied staff quarter on 28th April, 2000 and later on he was transferred to Shan Gahan through orders dated 17th July 2000 where he resumed his duty on 21st July 2000, but as he unauthorisedly occupied the staff quarter at Ahwa with effect from 25th April, 1994 till 28th April, 2000, he was liable to pay market rent for unauthorised occupation and while auditing books of accounts of Dangs District Panchayat, Local Fund Audit-Examiner, Valsad determined the market rent of Rs. 800/- per month to be recovered from the petitioner and a copy of the said audit paragraph is annexed herewith and marked as annexure 'C' to this reply. 6. Respondent No. 2 states that as per Government Resolution dated 28th July 1989 issued by Roads and Building Department, an employee is required to hand over possession of the staff quarter within two month of his/her transfer under the provisions of Government Resolution as well as provisions of Rule 834 of Bombay Civil Service Rules and as in the instant case the petitioner unauthorisedly occupied the staff quarter, an audit para was raised and, therefore, at the time of his retirement when pension papers were to be prepared, the respondent No. 2 was entitled to recover market rent before the release of the retiral benefits and, therefore, the petitioner gave an undertaking in writing willingly agreeing to deduction of the said market rent from his gratuity and a copy of the said undertaking is annexed herewith and marked as annexure 'D' to this reply. It is further stated that the petitioner is paid all his retiral benefits after deduction of Rs. 66,400/-, but during re-calculation, it is found that as such Rs. 56,000/- are to be recovered as marked a rent and, therefore, respondent No. 2 agrees to release an amount of Rs. 10,000/- at the earliest. It is further stated that the petitioner is paid all his retiral benefits after deduction of Rs. 66,400/-, but during re-calculation, it is found that as such Rs. 56,000/- are to be recovered as marked a rent and, therefore, respondent No. 2 agrees to release an amount of Rs. 10,000/- at the earliest. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner had unauthorisedly occupied the staff quarter though his Head Quarter was fixed at Subir for nearly 70 months and, therefore, market rent of a quarter consisting of two rooms, one kitchen and bathroom is rightly recovered from his retiral benefits and therefore, this Honourable Court is prayed to reject the petition in limine with costs in the interest of administration and justice." 5. Mr. Munshaw invited my attention to the report of the Audit Department, which is at page 39. Mr. Munshaw also invited my attention to the undertaking furnished by the petitioner which was reduced into writing dated 15th October 2001 that he would have no objection if the amount of Rs. 66,400/- was deducted from his gratuity. 6. It appears that for a period of six years i.e. between 1994 and 2000, the petitioner retained the quarter although he was transferred to the village called Subir in the very same district. It is not in dispute that the petitioner being a Circle Inspector, if would have requested for allotment of a government quarter at Subir, then he would have been allotted one. However, the petitioner thought fit not to take a quarter at Subir, but retained the quarter at Ahwa. The materials on record would indicate that during the interregnum period of six years, neither any authority raised any objection even once in that regard nor a single notice was issued asking the petitioner to vacate the quarter, otherwise, the petitioner would be charged at the market rent. On the contrary, it appears from the materials on record that the authorities concerned permitted the petitioner at their own free will and volition to retain the quarter on the ground that if the quarter remains to be occupied, then it would be maintained. Otherwise, the condition of the quarter would get dilapidated. The authorities concerned were of the view that since there was no one to occupy the quarter, they did not raise any objection. 7. Otherwise, the condition of the quarter would get dilapidated. The authorities concerned were of the view that since there was no one to occupy the quarter, they did not raise any objection. 7. When the petitioner retired from the service, the authorities concerned decided to withhold the amount of Rs. 66,400/- from the gratuity of the petitioner. Therefore, there are two questions I need to answer. First, whether the authorities concerned could have withheld the amount of Rs. 66,400/- from the gratuity, and secondly, after retaining the quarter whether the petitioner could have claimed travelling allowance, known as 'Permanent Travelling Allowance' (P.T.A.). 8. The peculiar facts of this case are sufficient for this Court to take a decision that the authorities could not have withheld the amount of gratuity. The decision to do so was not in accordance with law. 9. Let me assume for the moment that the petitioner had unlawfully retained the quarter for a period of six years despite the fact that he was transferred to another place. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Gorakhpur University v. Shitla Prasad Nagendra, 2001 (6) SCC 591 had an occasion to consider almost an identical issue. In that case, Shitla Prasad Nagendra was appointed as a Teacher in the Sociology Department of the University and subsequently, was promoted as a Professor. The University had provided him with University accommodation. During the period between 20th May 1986 and 19th May 1989, he was appointed as a Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Lucknow. But in spite of the same, he continued to hold the accommodation without vacating the same. The University decided to withhold some of his retiral benefits on the ground that Shitla Prasad was liable to pay the rent of the quarter since he had failed to vacate the same after being appointed as a Vice-Chancellor. The argument of the University before the Supreme Court was that as Shitla Prasad did not vacate the official quarter even after retirement, it rendered Shitla Prasad liable for penal rent for such unauthorised occupation, and the University was justified in law to adjust the amount due therefor before settling and disbursing the terminal benefits and no exception could be taken for the move made on behalf of the University. The Supreme Court, while negativing such contention of the University, observed as under: "5. The Supreme Court, while negativing such contention of the University, observed as under: "5. We have carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the respective parties before us. The earlier decision pertaining to this very University reported in 1996 (2) ESC 211 (All) (supra) is that of a Division Bench rendered after considering the principles laid down and also placing reliance upon the decisions of this Court reported in (1994) 6 SCC 589 (supra) which, in turn, relied upon earlier decisions in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429 : ( AIR 1985 SC 356 : 1985 Lab IC 664) and AIR 1981 SC 212 (supra). This Court has been repeatedly emphasising the position that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any bounty to be distributed by Government but are valuable rights acquired and property in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement whereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest. Withholding of quarters allotted, while in service, even after retirement without vacating the same has been viewed to be not a valid ground to withhold the disbursement of the terminal benefits. Such is the position with reference to amounts due towards provident fund, which is rendered immune from attachment and deduction or adjustment as against any other dues from the employee. In the context of this, mere reliance on behalf of the appellant upon yet another decision of a different Division Bench of the very High Court rendered without taking note of any of the earlier decisions of this Court but merely proceeding to decide the issue upon equitable considerations of balancing conflicting claims of respective parties before it does not improve the case of the appellant any further. Reliance placed for the appellant-University on the decision reported in 2000 Suppl (1) JT (SC) 515 (supra) does not also sound well on the facts and circumstances of this case. It is not clear from the facts relating to the said decision as to whether the person concerned was allowed to remain in occupation on receipt of the normal rent as in the present case. It is not clear from the facts relating to the said decision as to whether the person concerned was allowed to remain in occupation on receipt of the normal rent as in the present case. As noticed earlier, the case of the contesting respondent in this case is that the University authorities regularly accepted the rent at normal rates every month from the petitioner till the quarters was vacated and that in spite of request made for the allotment of the said quarters in favour of the son of the respondent, who is in the service of the University, no decision seems to have been taken and communicated though it is now claimed in the Court proceedings that he is not entitled to this type of accommodation. Further, the facts disclosed such as the resolutions of the University resolving to waive penal rent from all Teachers as well as that of the Executive Council dated 18-7-1994 and the actual such waiver made in the case of several others cannot be easily ignored. The lethargy shown by the authorities in not taking any action according to law to enforce their right to recover possession of the quarters from the respondent or fix liability or determine the so-called penal rent after giving prior show-cause notice or any opportunity to him before ever even proceeding to recover the same from the respondent renders the claim for penal rent not only a seriously disputed or contested claim but the University cannot be allowed to recover summarily the alleged dues according to its whims in a vindictive manner by adopting different and discriminatory standards. The facts disclosed also show that it is almost one year after the vacation of the quarter and that too on the basis of certain subsequent orders increasing the rates of penal rent, the applicability of which to the respondent itself was again seriously disputed and to some extent justifiably too, the appellant cannot be held to be entitled to recover by way of adjustment such disputed sums or claims against the pension, gratuity and provident fund amounts indisputably due and unquestionably payable to the respondent before us. The claims of the University cannot be said to be in respect of an admitted or conceded claim or sum due. The claims of the University cannot be said to be in respect of an admitted or conceded claim or sum due. Therefore, we are of the view that no infirmity or illegality could be said to be vitiated the order, under challenge in this appeal, to call for our interference, apart from the further reason that the disbursements have already been said to have been made in this case as per the decision of the High Court. 6. The appeal fails and, therefore, shall stand dismissed. No costs. We make it clear that this shall not have the effect of foreclosing the rights of the University, if any, if the appellant chose to workout the same, as is permissible in law." 11. A learned Single Judge of this Court relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gorakhpur University (supra) has taken the very same view which I propose to take in the case in hand. In Bhailal Kalidas Barot v. Factory Manager, Jehangir Textile Mills Limited and others, 2003(1) GLR 629 , this Court observed in para 2 as under: "2. It hardly requires any elaboration to discern that the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, travelled far beyond it's jurisdiction and decided issue of payment of gratuity on the basis of a totally extraneous consideration of with-holding of quarter and practically decreed the amount allegedly due by way of penal rent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Gorakhpur University and ors. v. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra and others, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 591 , wherein it is reiterated and emphasised that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any bounty to be distributed by the Government but are valuable rights acquired and property in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement whereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest. The Supreme Court has also observed that with-holding of quarters allotted while in service, even after retirement without vacating the same has been viewed to be not a valid ground to withhold the disbursement of the terminal benefits. The Supreme Court has also observed that with-holding of quarters allotted while in service, even after retirement without vacating the same has been viewed to be not a valid ground to withhold the disbursement of the terminal benefits. In view of the above clear proposition of law and there being no other dispute or objection as regards payment of gratuity, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is required to be set aside and the original order of the Controlling Authority awarding full amount of gratuity with interest is required to be upheld." 12. In what circumstances the petitioner gave an undertaking in writing so far as withholding of the requisite amount is concerned, is difficult to understand. Probably, the petitioner might have been told that if he would not give such undertaking, then he would not get a single penny towards his terminal benefits. Such undertaking has no force of law and is not at all binding to the petitioner. In my view, the respondents should not be permitted to rely upon such undertaking. 13. The second issue is with regard to claiming of the Permanent Travelling Allowance called P.T.A. As observed by me earlier with open eyes, the authorities concerned permitted the petitioner to retain the quarter and also decided to pay him the P.T.A. At the fag end of the retirement, it was not permissible for them to take a decision that the petitioner was not entitled to the P.T.A. having retained the quarter at Ahwa. 14. In view of the above, I hold that the action on the part of the respondents in withholding the amount of Rs. 66,400/- from the gratuity of the petitioner is illegal. The authorities concerned are directed to immediately release the amount of Rs. 66,400/- with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.