ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The question involved in this appeal is whether the interest is payable on arrears of salary to which the respondent became entitled by being retrospectively promoted. The Food and Civil Supplies Department, the Department concerned of the appellant, was the respondent in several writ petitions filed by its employees with regard to their respective claims for promotion. Diverse orders were passed on these writ petitions. All matters ultimately came up before this Court when this Court on 7-1-1997 set aside all the orders passed by the various Benches of the High Court and directed that fresh promotions should be made with retrospective effect according to the State-level seniority list submitted to this Court. In respect of those who have been promoted prior to 1-1-1985, it was directed that if they were promoted by the V.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Promotions (on Posts within the Purview of PSC) Rules, 1988, they were not to be disturbed. This Court also went on to say that those promoted with retrospective effect would be entitled to all pecuniary benefits on such promotion. 3. According to the seniority list which was the subject-matter of scrutiny by this Court on 7-1-1997, the respondent had been placed at Serial No. 128. Subsequently, this position was revised and he was shown against Serial No. 76-A. 4. By orders dated 22-7-1998 and 8-2-1999, the respondent was directed to be promoted by the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies Department. The seniority list was, however, revised on 2-6-1999 whereby the respondent c was placed at Serial No.5. 5. In the meanwhile, there was a proposed merger between the Supply and Marketing Wings of the Department of Food and Civil Supplies. On a writ petition filed by some of the employees of the Department, an interim order was passed on 13-9-1999 to the effect that it would not be appropriate to make any further promotion without giving final shape to the merger and that "until the valid provision is made to enforce the Cabinet decision for the merger of both the cadres, no regular promotions shall be made". 6. It is the appellants' case that because of this interim order they were not in a position to comply with the orders of the Commissioner relating to the promotion of the respondent. 7. The respondent then filed a writ petition which was disposed of by the (impugned order. 6. It is the appellants' case that because of this interim order they were not in a position to comply with the orders of the Commissioner relating to the promotion of the respondent. 7. The respondent then filed a writ petition which was disposed of by the (impugned order. The High Court directed the appellant to promote the respondent to the post of Area Rationing Officer with effect from 23-7-1984 being the date on which the respondent's juniors were promoted. The High Court also directed that the arrears must 'be paid to him within a period of three months with interest @ 12% per annum. There is no dispute with regard to the first two directives of the High Court, namely, that the I respondent should be promoted with retrospective effect and that he was entitled to get the arrears paid to him within a period of three months from the date of the order. The appellants' grievance is limited to the question of payment of interest. 8. In our opinion the directions for payment of interest by the High Court was incorrect. There was no prayer in the writ petition for payment of interest. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has not pointed out to any rule under which the respondent could have claimed interest. The reliance on the order in the case of Jagdish Prasad Tiwari is misplaced. Mr Jagdish Prasad Tiwari was no doubt promoted even during the operation of the interim order dated 13-9-1999. That was because he had filed a writ petition whereby the High Court, after considering the interim order dated 13-9-1999, had specifically directed Jagdish Prasad Tiwari to be promoted as Area 'Rationing Officer with effect from 23-7-2004. In compliance with such specific directive, the respondents therein had promoted Jagdish Prasad Tiwari. Except for the impugned order, there was no such directive as far as the respondent was concerned. It is also noteworthy that in directing the retrospective promotion of Jagdish Prasad Tiwari there was no direction given by the High Court for payment of interest. 9. It may be that the merger has subsequently fallen through. But that happened in 2003. It did not take away from the inability of the appellant from making promotions as long as the order dated 13-9-1999 continued unless there was a specific directive of the High Court to that effect. 10. 9. It may be that the merger has subsequently fallen through. But that happened in 2003. It did not take away from the inability of the appellant from making promotions as long as the order dated 13-9-1999 continued unless there was a specific directive of the High Court to that effect. 10. In the circumstances, we dispose of the appeal by confirming the order of the High Court except insofar as it directs payment of interest. That portion of the order is set aside. It is not clear whether the appellants have paid the arrears of salary to the respondent within the time fixed by the High Court. If they have not, they shall do so within a period of 6 weeks from date failing which they will pay interest on the arrears at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till payment is made. 11. There shall be no order as to costs.