Lokeshwar Prasad ( 1 ) THE petitioner, an ex-officer of the Indian Army, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the payer that a mandamus/ direction/order be issued directing the respondents to pay damages/interest on delayed payment of commuted pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner, an officer in the Indian Army, retired on 28th February, 1989. The retiral benefits, to which the petitioner was entitled, as per the rules, were released to him excepting that the amount of commuted pension, amounting to Rs. 1,54,489. 00 and the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity, amounting to Rs. 75,000. 00 were not released and the same were released to him after protracted correspondence on 1st August, 1990. The petitioner has prayed that on the above amount of commuted pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity, amounting to Rs. 2,25,489. 00, damages/ interest @ 15 per cent per annum be paid to him by the Respondents for the period of delay i. e. from 1st March, 1989 to 31st July,1990. ( 2 ) ON the other hand the case of the respondents to whom a notice of the petition was given, in brief, is that as the PPOs were sent to the petitioner in January, 1989 and the death-cum-retirement gratuity was also notified in time, the petitioner is not entitled to any damages/interest and the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed with costs. ( 3 ) WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount of commuted pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity, amounting to Rs. 2,29,489. 00, which was payable to the petitioner on 1st March, 1989 i. e. soon after his retirement, was not paid to him till 31st July, 1990 and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to interest as claimed by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1985sc 356 and AIR 1988 SC 1407 . Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1985sc 356 and AIR 1988 SC 1407 . ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the respondents, in honouring the claim of the petitioner, have acted with utmost promptitude and delay, if any, has been caused due to circumstances which were beyond the control of the respondents i. e. loss of documents in transit, he further submitted that when the petitioner appeared in person before the Officers of the respondents the duplicate payment orders in respect of the amount of commuted pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity were handed over to him by the officers of the respondents with utmost promptitude. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, when there is no delay on the part of the respondents, the respondents cannot be saddled with the liability of paying interest and the petitioner s claim for grant of interest has no merit and the same deserves to be rejected. ( 5 ) THE only question requiring our consideration in the present case is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the petitioner is entitled to interest as prayed by him. ( 6 ) ADMITTED facts in the instant case are that the petitioner, an officer in the Indian Army, retired on 28th February, 1989. The retiral benefits, other than the amount of commuted pension and the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity were paid to him with due promptitude. However, the amount of commuted pension and amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity, amounting to Rs. 2,29,489. 00 was paid to the petitioner by respondent No. 2 on 31st July, 1990, by means of four pay orders as per details given in para 11 of the petition. ( 7 ) THE word "interest" literally means premium paid for the use of money (Chamber s Twentieth Century Dictionary) or money paid for use of money lent or for forbearance of debt (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English ). The full import of the word has not, however, been explained in any of the two. The basic view, as conveyed by these meanings, is that it is a charge made for the use of money given by one person and taken by another. The full import of the word has not, however, been explained in any of the two. The basic view, as conveyed by these meanings, is that it is a charge made for the use of money given by one person and taken by another. As per settled law in the absence of any usage or contract, express or implied, or of any provision of to justify the award of interest, interest by way of damages cannot be awarded. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, it is open to the Court to award interest on principles of equity, justice and good conscience. The High Court of Kerala In case K. V. Joseph Vs. Union of India reported as AIR 1957 Kerala 3, relying on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in case Trojan and Company Vs. Nagappa Chettiar reported as AIR 1953 SC 235 , held that ordinarily interest cannot be claimed merely because money has been detained as a result of defendant s acts or misconduct end in order to invoke the rule of equity it is necessary in the first instance to establish the existence of a state of circumstances which attracts the equitable jurisdiction. ( 9 ) THE case of the petitioner, for grant of interest cannot be considered under the provisions of law, usage or contract. Coming to equity, the position is that we have to satisfy ourselves as to whether the petitioner, in the present case, has been able to establish the existence of circumstances which may attract equitable jurisdiction. In so far as the above aspect is concerned the position is that from the facts as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the correctness of which is not disputed even by the petitioner, it is apparent that the respondent on their part have taken timely action in the matter by sending the concerned papers/ P. P. O. s to file authorities of Bank as per the directions of the petitioner. However, as luck would have it the same were lost during transit in dak. Not only this, on receipt of intimation regarding non receipt of PPOs by the Bank the respondents issued duplicate P. P. OS and despatched the same to the concerned Bank at Srinagar (Jandk ). However, as luck would have it the same were lost during transit in dak. Not only this, on receipt of intimation regarding non receipt of PPOs by the Bank the respondents issued duplicate P. P. OS and despatched the same to the concerned Bank at Srinagar (Jandk ). It is further apparent from the contents of the counter affidavit that when the Petitioner personally approached the respondents and represented that the above mentioned P. P. OS had not been received by him and submitted a loss Certificate issued by the Bank, the respondents, without any delay again issued duplicate copies of P. P. O. s and handed over the some personally to the petitioner with almost promptitude. ( 10 ) FROM the narration of the above facts it is apparent that there is no culpable delay on the part of respondents. Whatever delay has occurred, has occurred due to the fact that the P. P. OS despatched twice the respondents by post were lost in transit. We are not aware of the circumstances under which the above said P. P. Os were lost in transit, firstly because the concerned Postal Authorities are not before us and secondly the respondents in their counter have categorically stated that the matter regarding the non-delivery of the aforesaid postal communication was referred to the Senior Superintendent, Post Offices for investigation and the authorities of Postal Department vide their letter dated 22. 11. 1990 have intimated that as the case was too old, investigation in the matter was not possible, The above facts, as stated in the counter, have not been controverted. ( 11 ) THE case Bharat Petroleum Management staff Pensioners Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others reported as A. I. R 1988 S. C. 1407, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments, is distinguishable and, in no way helps the petitioner. In case State of Kerala and Others Vs. ( 11 ) THE case Bharat Petroleum Management staff Pensioners Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others reported as A. I. R 1988 S. C. 1407, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments, is distinguishable and, in no way helps the petitioner. In case State of Kerala and Others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair reported as AIR 1985 SC 356 also relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been held by the Supreme Court that pension and gratuity are no longer bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on the retirement and the same are valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment. Thus, in terms of the above decision of the Supreme Court too, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is essential to establish, before saddling the respondents with the liability to pay interest/damages on the alleged delayed payment that there was any culpable delay on the part of the respondents in settlement and disbursement of the amount in question to the petitioner. ( 12 ) THUS viewed from all angles it cannot be stated that there was any culpable delay on the part of respondents in taking steps for the release of the amount in question to the Petitioner. In other words, the petitioner could not the existence of such circumstances so as to attract the equitable jurisdiction in the present case. ( 13 ) IN view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the present petition, filed by the petitioner, merits rejection end consequently the same is rejected with no order as to costs.