Judgment 1. Any order which has been passed on the writ petition can hardly be contended on behalf of the State that it suffers from any error. 2. The order records that on behalf of the State no reply was filed as a counter affidavit. Respondent no. 8 who had been especially served with separate notice, for reasons best known, choose neither to file a counter affidavit nor appear. 3. This is also not a case which was disposed of at the threshold. The petition was filed on 25 July, 2001. On 26 July, 2001 notices were issued with time having been granted to file a counter affidavit. The matter was taken up on 24 September, 2001 and no reply had been filed by any of the State respondents as a counter affidavit. In the circumstances, the Court is unable to certify that the learned Judge had committed an error in passing the order. 4. Further, of an order which was passed on the writ petition on 24 July, 2001, a Letters Patent Appeal is being filed in 2003 after almost one year and three months. This clearly shows that either there was a callousness in not replying to the petition and further callousness in not filing the Letters Patent Appeal within limitation. Not only this, the affidavit supporting the application seeking condonation of delay mentions that the Dealing Assistant put up the file on 19 March, 2002 for review and for opinion of the Advocate General through the officer on special duty (Ayurvedic). 5. There is no question of any review as the Court in any case had granted sufficient time to the State respondents to file a reply to the petition and they chose not to reply it. The Letters Patent Appeal was filed after more than a year. It gives an irresistible presumption of either negligence, or collusion between the person who filed the petition and State respondents, again of filing the Letters Patent Appeal belatedly. For nealiaence in delaying the proceeding of retirement dues, when no defence was offered in the writ petition by the State respondents, a "Dealing Assistant" cannot suggest review of the judgment if it is a case of callousness, negligence, collusion or surreptitious suppression of files by red tape to be opened only on a service charge. This is a matter for inquiry in administration. This is a matter for inquiry in administration. A "dealing Assistant" suggesting opinion of the Advocate General on admitted pension dues not paid, does look odd. 6. There is no grave question of law in this case. It is a simple case of taking no responsibility, from to bottom in addressing attention to retirement dues of government employees. Such situations tantamount to harassment to retired government employees at the hands of an insensitive administration. 7. The Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Judge passed on the writ petition. 8. Dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the law Secretary.