Judgment 1. Civil Review has been filed on behalf of Respondent no. 5 in the connected C.W.J.C. No. 6429 of 1999 seeking review of the order dated 24.3.2000 passed therein whereby Respondent no. 5 (petitioner herein) has been directed to pay the amount of gratuity forthwith and further awarding penal interest @ 10% per annum on the said amount from the date of issuance of authority slip till the payment is actually made, besides cost of Rupees one thousand to be paid/recovered from Respondent no. 5. 2. M.J.C. application has been filed by the writ petitioner complaining deliberate disobedience of the said order and for initiating contempt proceeding against the Opposite parties. As both matters arise out of the same order, with consent of the parties they have been heard together for final disposal. 3. From the show cause filed by the Opposite parties in the M.J.C. application, it appears that earlier order could not be complied due to the clause incorporated in the authority slip issued by the Accountant General for compliance of which this Court passed the aforementioned order. The clause was that a certificate from the D.E.O., Katihar may be obtained that there is no outstanding Government dues on account of audit objection against the writ petitioner. There was controversy with respect to outstanding dues against the writ petitioner for which the case is also pending. However, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the said case was instituted on discovery of irregularity in payment by him, but he has been made escape-goat. In this regard, he also relied upon the report of the Additional Collector. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent no, 5 (petitioner in the review application) has contended that there was no delay or laches on the part of his client. In fact, he promptly acted on receipt of the sanction order and initially made the payments except the disputed amount which has also now been paid as per direction of this Court. Learned counsel, thus, submitted that the facts and circumstances of the present case demonstrate that there was no fault much less deliberate on the part of Respondent no. 5 (petitioner in review application). Learned counsel, thus, submitted that the facts and circumstances of the present case demonstrate that there was no fault much less deliberate on the part of Respondent no. 5 (petitioner in review application). However, he contended that as the payments have already been made, this Court may consider to take lenient view in the matter insofar as with respect to the amount of interest directed to be paid by his client. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering in the facts and circumstances of the case, the review application is allowed to the extent that the writ petitioner will not be entitled for interest on delayed payment, but having regard to the fact that he has been dragged in litigation, this Court does not find any reason to review the order under review, whereby cost has been awarded and Respondent no. 5 must comply the same, if not already complied, within two weeks. The M.J.C. application is also accordingly disposed of.