JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. I.A. No.1304 of 2021 1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 627 days, which has occurred in preferring the present appeal. 2. Head learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the application, we are of the opinion that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 4. Accordingly, the delay of 627 days in preferring the present appeal is hereby condoned and this application stands allowed. L.P.A. No.84 of 2021 5. This instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent of the Patna High Court, is directed against the order/judgment dated 11.04.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2674 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the direction has been passed upon the respondent-BCCL, the appellant herein, to make payment of the balance retiral amount in favour of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order along with 8% per cent interest per annum from the date of his retirement till its payment and file an affidavit informing this Court about the said payment. 6. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which requires to be enumerated, reads hereunder as: The writ petitioner had joined the service in the Rajapur Open Cast Project on 17.02.1982 as Dozer Operator (trainee) and became permanent sometime in the year 1984. The writ petitioner while in service, was allotted the quarter for his residential purpose being Quarter No.DL-II-21 situated at Domgarh, Sindri vide office order dated 7/13.09.1997. The writ petitioner has superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. The writ petitioner, although has been paid most of the retiral benefit but part of it since has not been disbursed, he approached to this Court by filing writ petition invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said writ petition was contested by the respondent-BCCL, the appellant herein, on the ground that the writ petitioner even though has superannuated from service on attaining the age of 60 years but has not vacated the residential accommodation which was allotted to him while he was in service and that is the reason the rest of the retrial benefit has not been paid. The learned Single Judge in order to examine the quarter in question, whether it is in vacant position or not, passed an order by appointing an Advocate Commissioner, as would be evident from the order dated 13.03.2019. The Advocate Commissioner has given his report wherein the quarter has been found in vacant position. The learned Single Judge on perusing the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, has passed an order by disposing of the writ petition, directing the respondent-BCCL to disburse the balance retiral amount in favour of the writ petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order along with 8% per cent interest per annum from the date of his retirement till its payment. The aforesaid order is under challenge before this Court as intra-court appeal. 7. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, submits that it was incumbent upon the concerned employee to show the vacant position of the quarters in question to the Management after superannuation from service as per the circular applicable to all the superannuated employees. But the concerned employee, the writ petitioner, has not followed the policy decision of the BCCL and that is the reason the Management, adopting the bona fide approach, has disbursed most of the retiral benefit but retained part of it saying that the date when the quarter will be vacated the rest amount will be paid. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned. The admitted fact of this case is that the writ petitioner who was an employee of the respondent-BCCL had been allotted the residential quarter vide office order no.7/13.09.1997. He superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years and most of the retiral benefit has been paid but part of it has been retained on the pretext that the quarter, which was allotted in favour of the writ petitioner by way of residential accommodation when he was in service, has not been vacated. He superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years and most of the retiral benefit has been paid but part of it has been retained on the pretext that the quarter, which was allotted in favour of the writ petitioner by way of residential accommodation when he was in service, has not been vacated. The writ petitioner has approached to this Court by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the learned Single Judge has considered the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner and vide order dated 11.04.2019 direction has been passed for payment of the balance retiral amount in favour of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order along with 8% per cent interest per annum. 9. The basic question which is to be considered and to be answered by this Court as to whether after superannuation of an employee retiral amount withheld by the Management-BCCL is said to be justified? 10. It is not res integra that the retiral benefit is not a bounty but it is a right within a meaning of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 , at paragraph 33 has held as under: “33. Having due regard to the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by sub-article (5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order, dated June 12, 1968, denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable. It may be that under the Pension Act (Act 23 of 1871) there is a bar against a civil court entertaining any suit relating to the matters mentioned therein. It may be that under the Pension Act (Act 23 of 1871) there is a bar against a civil court entertaining any suit relating to the matters mentioned therein. That does not stand in the way of writ of mandamus being issued to the State to property consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law.” Subsequently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 , at paragraph 16 has held as under: “16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognised as a right in “property”. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India reads as under: “300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.—No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.” 11. This Court on the basis of above judgments/legal pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court has tested the action of the management in order to scrutinize the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The case of the appellant is that the writ petitioner has retired from service but retained the quarter. However, the retention of the said quarter has not been corroborated from the report of Advocate Commissioner which has been furnished in the light of order dated 13.03.2019 and based upon the said report the order has been passed by the learned Single Judge directing the respondent-BCCL for payment of balance retiral amount in favour of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order along with 8% per cent interest per annum. Even accepting that the quarter has not been vacated, can the action of the Management-BCCL in not disbursing the retiral benefit like pension and gratuity be said to be justified? Even accepting that the quarter has not been vacated, can the action of the Management-BCCL in not disbursing the retiral benefit like pension and gratuity be said to be justified? Relying upon the aforesaid proposition of law as has been given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (supra) wherein the ratio has been laid down that even in the case of pendency of the departmental proceeding, the retiral dues cannot be withheld. In the aforesaid judgment the pension and gratuity has been held to be right to property within a meaning of Article 300 A to the Constitution of India and applying the said ratio the retiral benefit of an employee cannot be withheld by the employer. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter and more particularly the fact about the status of the quarter which has been found to be not in possession of the writ petitioner as per the report furnished by the Advocate Commissioner, has passed an order directing the respondent-BCCL for disbursement of the rest retiral balance amount, which according to our considered view cannot be said to be suffer from an error. 12. Accordingly, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has committed no error, warranting any interference by this Court. 13. In view thereof, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 14. This Court is of the view that the learned Single Judge has passed order directing the respondent to disburse the balance retiral dues in favour of the writ petitioner within stipulated period. Admittedly the said period has elapsed. Therefore, we direct the appellant-BCCL to disburse the balance retiral benefit in favour of the writ petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order along with 8% per cent interest per annum. 15. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant appeal stands disposed of.