Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14064 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23194 of 2018 Petitioner :- Chandra Pal Respondent :- Provincial Co-Operative Fedeerationj Thru. Chairman And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- Shireesh Kumar Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 16.06.2016 passed by the respondent No.2, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, so far as it pertains to the withholding the amount towards Earned Leave Encashment and an amount of Rs.2,67,958/- as gratuity. Further prayer is for payment of aforesaid amount with interest. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details facts of the case are that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2015. 4. At the time of his retirement, gratuity had not been paid, which has been paid to him by means of the order impugned dated 16.06.2016. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order impugned indicates that an amount of Rs.2,67,958/- has been adjusted from the gratuity payable to the petitioner of Rs.8,73,084/- and thus amount of Rs.5,08,872/- has been paid to him towards gratuity and entire leave encashment amount has been withheld. 6. It is contended that a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that leave encashment has been withheld on the basis of audit objections, which is patently misconceived and cannot be done considering the judgment of this Court passed in Writ A No.5756 of 2023 In Re Raj Kumar vs Provincial Co-operative Federation U.P. through M.D. & Anr. 7. Further contention is that no amount can be recovered from the gratuity of a retired employee as the rules do not empower the respondents to do so. Thus, it is prayed that the aforesaid amount be directed to be paid to the petitioner along with permissible interest. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of averment made in the counter affidavit contends that an amount of Rs.2,67,958/- has been adjusted from the petitioner as 220 bags of DAP were found to be substandard and it was not sold out by the petitioner. 9. So far as payment of Leave Encashment is concerned, it is contended that as audit report of the year 2012-13 is awaited, as such the amount of leave encashment has not been released to the petitioner. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it emerges that after the petitioner retired on 31.12.2015 the respondents have passed the order impugned dated 16.06.2016 whereby certain amount has been deducted from his gratuity and the entire leave encashment has not been paid to the petitioner. 11. So far as non payment of leave encashment is concerned, the basis is non completion of audit work. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) wherein this Court has held that the respondents have failed to show any statutory provisions enabling the respondents to withhold leave encashment benefit which had been withheld on the basis of certain audit objections. 12. Considering the aforesaid judgment in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), it is thus apparent that the respondents are not within the right of withholding the leave encashment on the basis of audit objections or that the audit has not been completed. 13. So far as payment of deduction of an amount of Rs.2,67,958/- from the gratuity is concerned, the respondents have failed to indicate any statutory provision enabling the respondents to make any deduction from the gratuity of the petitioner. 14. It is settled proposition of law that pension and gratuity is the valuable right of the employee, which is to be disbursed to the employee unless there are specific provisions enabling the employer to withhold the same or to make any deduction. As indicated above, the respondents have miserably failed to indicate any provision whereby any deduction can be made from the gratuity payable to a retired employee. Thus, the deduction of the amount from the gratuity payable to the petitioner is also held to be bad. 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 16.06.2016 so far as it pertains to the deduction of amount of Rs.2,67,958/- from the gratuity of the petitioner and withholding the entire leave encashment of the petitioner is quashed. The respondents are directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner along with 7% interest from the date the same became due to the petitioner till date of actual payment which payment shall be made within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 prateek Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench