JUDGMENT : 1. In view of the fact that the petitioner, who appears in person, has to come from a distant place for each hearing and the claim made by him is for his post-retirement benefits, he having been retired in January, 1983, we considered it appropriate that the matter should be disposed of on merits as early as possible. Notice was issued on 17.8.1992 and on 14.9.1992 Shri V.K. Verma, who appeared for the Union of India, was given time to look into the matter and file ls the reply. The next date fixed was 12.10.92, suit the convenience of Shri V.K, Verma. On 12.10.92 Shri V.K. Verma, counsel for the Union of India stated that he had not been given a copy of the petition till then. The matter was again adjourned and taken up on 17.11.92. Shri V.K. Verma did not appear on 17.11.92 and in his place Ms. Ameeta Singh appeared on his behalf only to seek an adjournment. In these circumstances, to avoid any further delay, Sri A. Subba Rao who was present in the Court and often appears for the Union of India, to appear I in this case and take necessary instructions to avoid the petitioner coming repeatedly to Delhi from a distant place where he lives. Shri A. Subba Rao, at our request, agreed to do so. 2. Today when the matter is taken up Sri A. Subba Rao has reported that the Central Agency has refused to give him any papers of this matter and, therefore, he is unable to assist the Court. We, therefore, relieve Sri A. Subba Rao from the obligation of appearing in this case to which he had agreed at our behest to avoid any further delay in this matter. 3. Reply on behalf of Union of India is filed today and a copy thereof is given to the petitioner. The petitioner may file reply, if any, within two weeks from today. The case be listed on 16th December, 1992. 4. We are constrained to observe that the refusal of the Central Agency to give the necessary papers to Sri A. Subba Rao, as stated by him before us, when he had agreed to appear in this matter on behalf of the Union of India at our request, is to say the least, shocking to us. 4. We are constrained to observe that the refusal of the Central Agency to give the necessary papers to Sri A. Subba Rao, as stated by him before us, when he had agreed to appear in this matter on behalf of the Union of India at our request, is to say the least, shocking to us. We take strong exception to this conduct of the persons in the Central Agency. However, Dr. Anand Prakash who appears today on behalf of the Union of India assures us that he would look into the matter. For this reason, at this stage, we say nothing more about it. We expect Dr. Anand Prakash to report to us the further details which we would take into consideration before making any order in this behalf. 5. In view of this adjournment, we direct the Union of India to pay Rs.500/- to the petitioner to meet his travelling expenses of one trip to Delhi.