JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is the employer-Management of Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited. 2. Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 09/10.08.2006 passed by the Controlling Authority under P.G. Act, 1972 in Case No.36/2/2003-E-2, and order dated 19.09.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority in P.G. Appeal No.31 of 2006 whereby, employer/petitioner had been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,152/- (One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand One Hundred Fifty Two Only) towards Gratuity to the respondent-workman. 3. From the pleading, it appears that respondent-employee was a permanent employee under the petitioner-Corporation and after serving 31 years of unblemished service, he has retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.01.1998. In spite of retirement, all the dues have been paid but Gratuity has been retained. The respondent-employee has filed statutory Form-N before the Controlling Authority for release of the Gratuity amount, which has been registered as Case No.36/2/2003-E-2 and vide order dated 09/10.08.2006, the employer/petitioner had been directed to release the amount of Gratuity, which has been quantified as Rs.1,25,152.07/- 4. Being aggrieved, the employer/petitioner has preferred an appeal being P.G. Appeal No.31 of 2006 mainly on the ground that the respondent/employee has retained official quarter even after retirement and the same has been vacated on 14.03.2004 and as such, the employer/petitioner is entitled to adjust a sum of Rs.77,283/- towards electricity charges, water charges and house rent as per its policy. The policy has been produced as Annexure-1, which is in the form of memorandum. Relevant portion of the memorandum is reproduced hereinbelow: “On the event of non-vacation of Quarter within stipulated time or four months, licence fee, electric power and water would be charged at market rate. In addition to the above he/she will also be liable for action under P.P. Act, and any other action as per rules of the Corporation”. 5. As per above policy, if an employee does not vacate the official quarter within four months, he will be entitled to be charged licence fee, electric power etc. at market rate and further, he will be liable for action under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and any other action as per rules of the corporation. 6. On the strength of the above memorandum, adjustment has been prayed. 7. at market rate and further, he will be liable for action under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and any other action as per rules of the corporation. 6. On the strength of the above memorandum, adjustment has been prayed. 7. The Appellate Court has formulated point for consideration which is quoted hereinbelow: “Whether the employer can deduct the house rent, electricity charges etc. from the payable gratuity amount of the employee”. 8. After considering the material on record, it has been held by learned Appellate Court in P.G. Appeal No.31 of 2006 that the employer has no right to recover anything from the payment of gratuity against the mandate of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 9. The employer is free to act and recover the amount as per The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Accordingly, order of the Controlling Authority dated 09/10.08.2006 has been upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 19.09.2007. 10. The above two orders of the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority had been challenged in the present writ petition. 11. Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is quoted hereinbelow: (2) Where any person is, or has at any time been in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, the estate officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may, by order, require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such instalments, as may be specified in the order. [(2-A) While making an order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the estate officer may direct that the arrears of rent or, as the case may be, damages shall be payable together with [compound interest] at such rate as may be prescribed, not being a rate exceeding the current rate of interest within the meaning of the Interest Act, 1978 (14 of 1978).] (3) No order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be made against any person until after the issue of a notice in writing to the person calling upon him to show cause [within seven days from the date of issue thereof], why such order should not be made, and until his objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same, have been considered by the estate officer. [(4) Every order under this section shall be made by the estate officer as expeditiously as possible and all endeavour shall be made by him to issue the order within fifteen days of the date specified in the notice.] 12. Section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is quoted hereinbelow: 4. (1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years,— (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease: Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement: [Provided further that in the case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs, and where any such nominees or heirs is a minor, the share of such minor, shall be deposited with the controlling authority who shall invest the same for the benefit of such minor in such bank or other financial institution, as may be prescribed, until such minor attains majority.] Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, disablement means such disablement as incapacitates an employee for the work which he was capable of performing before the accident or disease resulting in such disablement. 13. 13. Further Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is quoted hereinbelow: 4.(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), – (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused; (b) the gratuity payable to an employee [may be wholly or partially forfeited]- (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment. 14. Section 4(1) provides that gratuity payable to an employee who has rendered continuous not less than 5 years of service shall be paid on his superannuation, retirement or resignation or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. Section 4(1) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is mandatory. This mandate in law is fortified under Section 14 of the Act which declares that provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act. Section 13 provides that no gratuity payable under the Act shall be liable to attachment in execution of any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal court. Section 7(3) mandates that the employer shall arrange payment of gratuity to the employee within 30 days from the date it becomes payable and sub-section 3-A of Section 7 provides that if such payment has been delayed, simple interest at such rate not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government shall accrue on the gratuity payable to the employee. 15. It is trite that gratuity is no more bounty, rather it is hard earned money of the employee on the strength of long and meritorious service rendered by him to the employer. In “Garment Cleaning Works v. Workmen” (1962) 1 SCR 711 , it has been held that pension is property within the meaning of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India and a workman can be deprived of benefit of pension only in accordance with law. In “Garment Cleaning Works v. Workmen” (1962) 1 SCR 711 , it has been held that pension is property within the meaning of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India and a workman can be deprived of benefit of pension only in accordance with law. Ordinarily, pension includes gratuity. In “Balbir Kaur and Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors.” (2000) 6 SCC 493 , it has been held that,” the payment of gratuity is no longer in the realm of charity but it is the statutory right provided in favour of the employee”. 16. In “Jaswant Singh Gill v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.” (2007) 1SCC 663, it has been held that the payment under Gratuity Act lays down the conditions on which the workman may be denied payment of gratuity and therefore, if accrued or vested right is sought to be taken away, the conditions laid down in the Act must be fulfilled. Section 4(6)(b)(ii) provides that if the services of the employees have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided such offence is committed by him in course of employment, the gratuity payable to him may be wholly or partially forfeited. 17. It is trite that concept of moral turpitude is connected with the offence, and it can be a ground for denial of gratuity, if the concerned workman has been convicted by a criminal court for the offence involving moral turpitude. Section 4(6)(a) deals with the situation that when the employer suffers loss due to misconduct committed by the employee, in such scenario, sub-section provides for forfeiture of property to the extent of damage or loss caused to the employer. Section 4(6)(b)(i) covers the area, if the services of such employee have been terminated for riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part. 18. Thus, law clear is that the Gratuity cannot be withheld except provided under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 19. Further, Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 has authorized an independent adjudicator to adjudicate the dispute between the employer and the employee and to quantify penal rent etc. On such adjudication and determination, the same can be recovered or becomes payable. 20. 19. Further, Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 has authorized an independent adjudicator to adjudicate the dispute between the employer and the employee and to quantify penal rent etc. On such adjudication and determination, the same can be recovered or becomes payable. 20. It is trite that employer has no role of adjudication and cannot claim and recover the amount from the employee and it has to be adjudicated upon by an independent adjudicator under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. 21. In the present case, admittedly, no adjudication of the dues or any quantification has been done by the authorized adjudicator under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and as such, there is no legally payable dues recoverable from the employee till date. Further, Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, clearly mandates the circumstances under which Gratuity can be withheld or forfeited. 22. In view of the above discussion and judicial pronouncements, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 09/10.08.2006 passed by the Controlling Authority under P.G. Act, 1972 in Case No.36/2/2003-E-2 and the order dated 19.09.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority in P.G. Appeal No.31 of 2006. 23. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. 24. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.