JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this Letters Patent Appeal, appellant-Corporation has challenged judgment dated 31.10.2011 passed in CWP No. 787 of 2010 titled Kanta Devi vs. H.P. Horticulture Produce Marketing & Processing Coop. Ltd and Another, whereby learned Single Judge has directed the appellant-Corporation to pay simple interest @ 18% per annum to the petitioner for delay in release of her retiral benefits from the date the same fell due with liberty to recover the same from the officer/official who was responsible for causing the delay in releasing the leave encashment and gratuity amount. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that respondent-Kanta Devi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) superannuated from the respondent- Corporation as Sr. Assistant on 30.4.2009. Her husband had taken loan from H.P. State Cooperative Bank to which petitioner stood as Guarantor and had given an undertaking to her DDO to deduct the installment of loan from her salary every month in case there was default committed by principal borrower on a written demand in this regard by the bank concerned. It was a condition agreed to by the petitioner that in case of her suspension, termination and dismissal or seeking voluntary retirement from the service during the currency of said loan/limit, or if her salary was held up by any reason then in that eventuality the Head of the Department/DDO may pay the outstanding dues of the bank from her terminal benefits. The grievance which was raised by petitioner in the writ petition was that after her retirement her leave encashment and gratuity were not released to her without any reason whatsoever. 3. A perusal of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge demonstrates that during the pendency of writ petition Principle Division Bench of this Court had passed order on 18.3.2010 directing the present appellant to disburse the undisputed amount to the petitioner if not already disbursed within two weeks. However, as the said order was not complied with, accordingly on 8.4.2011 a clarificatory order was passed by the Court that if undisputed amount is not released/disbursed to the petitioner then the same shall carry interest @ 18% and the officers responsible for the delay in disbursing the same shall be personally liable for the same. Thereafter on 26.4.2010 an amount of Rs. Thereafter on 26.4.2010 an amount of Rs. 1,96,118/- was released in favour of the petitioner, whereas an amount of Rs. 3,54,498/- was withheld allegedly on account of the default committed by principal borrower in the repayment of loan amount. It is also evident from the perusal of judgment passed by learned Single Judge that the loan in issue stood liquidated by the principal borrower on 4.6.2011 and thereafter pursuant to order passed by the Court, gratuity amount was released in favour of the petitioner on 11.8.2011. Learned Single Judge held that records demonstrated that petitioner had informed Executive Director of the appellant-Corporation that her husband was still in service and he would be retiring from service in the year 2011 and in case any loan amount was left due after the superannuation of her husband then the same would be cleared by him. Learned Single Judge also held that vide letter dated 4.6.2011, Bank had certified that loan amount of the husband of petitioner stood liquidated and nothing was due from him. Learned Single Judge also held that though there was no undertaking to withhold the amount on account of normal superannuation of the petitioner, no information in fact was sent by the bank during the service tenure of the petitioner that principal borrower had committed default in making the payment of loan. Learned Single Judge also held that the respondent-Corporation was only entitled to deduct monthly installment from the salary of petitioner as per her undertaking and not from her retiral benefits. It was further held by learned Single Judge that even after the Corporation received intimation from the bank about the full and final payment of the loan having been made by the principal borrower but it still took them four months in releasing the gratuity amount. On these bases it was held by learned Single Judge that undue hardship was caused to the petitioner by the act of the Corporation in release of the amount which were otherwise due to her and the Corporation was not justified in withholding the leave encashment and gratuity amount. 4. Learned Single Judge accordingly while allowing the writ petition directed the present appellant to pay the petitioner simple interest @ 18% from the date the same fell due and the direction passed by learned Single Judge to this effect stands assailed by way of this Letters Patent Appeal. 5. 4. Learned Single Judge accordingly while allowing the writ petition directed the present appellant to pay the petitioner simple interest @ 18% from the date the same fell due and the direction passed by learned Single Judge to this effect stands assailed by way of this Letters Patent Appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 6. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute the fact that no intimation was ever received by the appellant-Corporation during the service tenure of the respondent/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’) to the effect that her husband had committed any defaults in the repayment of his loan and therefore deductions be made from the salary of the petitioner as per the undertaking given by her. According to us, in this view of the matter, the appellant-Corporation was not at all justified in withholding the leave encashment and gratuity amount of the petitioner on the alleged defaults committed by her husband in the repayment of her loan. This is for the reason that appellant-Corporation was not having any authority to withhold any retiral benefits due to the petitioner in case of any defaults committed by her husband in repayment of loan. As per the undertaking given by the petitioner, deductions could have been made strictly in terms of the undertaking provided a communication to this effect was received by her employer from the bank concerned. 7. Before proceeding further we may also at this stage take note of the actual undertaking which was given by the petitioner to the appellant-Corporation, the same is quoted herein-below:- “To, The General Manager HPMC, Nigam Vihar, Shimla. Sir, My husband Sh. Rattan Lal Chauhan Suptt.II working as Sr. Analytical Chemist Shimla-4 H.P. is raising Term Loan amounting Rs. 3,00,000/- from H.P. State Co-Operative Bank, The Mall Shimla for which I stand as guarantor for the repayment of Banks dues in case of default made in repayment by Sh. Rattan Lal Chauhan (Borrower). I hereby authorize my DDO to deduce the instalment of loan every month from my salary in case of default made in repayment by Sh. Rattan Lal Chauhan (Borrower) on written demand of the aforesaid Bank and to remit the same into the loan/limit account of the above said Borrower till total liquidation of the loan/limit with interest. I hereby authorize my DDO to deduce the instalment of loan every month from my salary in case of default made in repayment by Sh. Rattan Lal Chauhan (Borrower) on written demand of the aforesaid Bank and to remit the same into the loan/limit account of the above said Borrower till total liquidation of the loan/limit with interest. Further in case of my suspension, termination dismissal from service or retired compulsory of seeking voluntary retirement from service during the currency of said loan/limit under any circumstances and again during the service, if my pay salary is held up on account of any reason by the employer under the service rules, I also authorize my Head of the Department/DDO to pay the outstanding dues of the Bank from my terminal benefits. In case of my transfer it shall be my sole responsibilities to inform the Bank in written. It is therefore, requested that I may kindly be permitted to stand as guarantor of Sh. Rattan Lal Chauhan and issue me salary slip for the month of Dec, 2005. The undertaking from the DDO required in this regard by the bank is enclosed herewith for necessary action/ signature please. Thanking you Dated 13.1.2006 Yours faithfuylly Sd/- (Kanta Devi) Senior Assistant, HPMC.” The undertaking also annexed with the present appeal as Annexure P-1. 8. It is a matter of record that petitioner superannuated from the service of appellant-Corporation on 30.4.2009. The correspondence on the basis of which the appellant-Corporation is justifying its act is appended with the appeal as Annexure P2, which is dated 29.3.2010. In our considered view while withholding the payment due to the petitioner on the basis of correspondence dated 29.3.2010, the appellant-Corporation erred in not appreciating that the undertaking which was furnished by present petitioner to the appellant-Corporation nowhere authorized the said Corporation to withhold any of her retiral dues for the purposes of liquidating the loan which was availed by her husband after her superannuation from service. The undertaking is very clear and specific that it authorized the appellant-Corporation to deduct installment of loan every month from her salary in case of default in repayment of loan by her husband and the same further authorized the appellant-Corporation to pay outstanding dues of the bank from her termination benefits in the eventuality of her suspension, termination dismissal from service or retired compulsory of seeking voluntary retirement from service. In this background, in our considered view there is no infirmity with the judgment passed by learned Single judge whereby learned Single judge has directed the appellant-Corporation to pay simple interest @ 18% per annum to the petitioner for delay in the release of her retiral benefits from the date the same fell due. Besides this, a perusal of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge further demonstrates that liberty has been given to the appellant-Corporation to recover the same from the officers/officials who were responsible for the said delay, therefore, also in our considered view even otherwise the appellant- Corporation cannot have any grievance with the directions so passed by learned Single Judge. 9. In view of the discussion held above, as we do not find any infirmity with the judgment passed by learned Single Judge, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.