As per case facts, the petitioner, a retired employee, was not paid arrears of salary and terminal benefits like gratuity and earned leave encashment after superannuation without any disciplinary issues. ... He worked for the 2nd respondent society and was later promoted to the 4th respondent bank. The 2nd respondent admitted liability but cited lack of funds, redirecting responsibility to the 4th respondent, who claimed to have paid its share for the period of the petitioner's service with them. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the non-release of his benefits as illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the respondents to release these benefits with interest. An interim order was issued for payment, which was not complied with, leading to a contempt case. The question arose whether the non-payment of gratuity and leave encashment to a retired employee without any legal impediment is valid. Finally, the High Court held that the non-payment was illegal. It ruled that terminal benefits are statutory entitlements and a property right, forming an integral part of the right to livelihood. Financial incapacity is not a valid defense. The Court directed respondents 2 and 3 to pay the remaining terminal benefits with interest at ten percent per annum within a stipulated period. The related Contempt Case was closed with liberty to seek recourse if orders are not complied.