Order This is the 4th of the series of writ applications filed by the petitioner Shri Gauri Shankar Tiwary who appears in person today to submit his case. 2. Heard the petitioner in person and Shri G.M. Mishra learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to pay him his dues claimed on the basis of his assertion that he was entitled for his promotion from the Non-Executive to Executive grade and to the higher grades in the Executive cadre as and when it had fallen due. 4. Shri G.S. Tiwary (Petitioner) had joined service under the respondent-B.S.L. on 26.12.1972 in the Non-Executive cadre. Thereafter, although he was entitled for promotion at regular intervals on his acquiring the eligibility for such promotion, but the respondent-Company did not consider his case at all. He had therefore to file a writ application before this Court vide C.WJ.C. No. 2239 of 1995(R). A Single Bench of this Court had allowed his writ application giving directions to the respondent-Company to grant promotion to the petitioner as prayed for by him. The respondent-Company preferred an appeal against the judgment of the Single Bench vide L.PA No. 681 of 2003. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 15.12.2003 had disposed of the appeal setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge and issuing certain specific directions to the respondent-Company in the following terms:- We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 18.8.2003, passed by the learned Single Judge and direct the appellant to consider the case of the respondent No.1 for promotion from Non-Executive to Executive post in the next DPC, which is under process and is scheduled to be held some time in December, 2003 itself. It is made clear that the case of the respondent no. 1 must be considered by the DPC for the purpose of promotion, keeping in view of the rule applicable in his case positively in December, 2003 so that he may get advantage his promotion before his retirement in January, 2004. 5. In compliance to the directions of the Division Bench, the petitioner was granted promotion from Non-Executive to Executive cadre in the lowest grade i.e. EO on 26.12.2003. The petitioner thereafter superannuated from service in the month of January, 2004. 6. 5. In compliance to the directions of the Division Bench, the petitioner was granted promotion from Non-Executive to Executive cadre in the lowest grade i.e. EO on 26.12.2003. The petitioner thereafter superannuated from service in the month of January, 2004. 6. Not being satisfied with the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid L.P.A., the petitioner moved the Apex Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. However, the petitioner withdrew his S.L.P. before the Supreme Court and preferred instead to file a representation before the concerned authorities of the respondent-Company reiterating his demand for payment of monetary benefits by considering his promotion from retrospective date from the non-Executive to Executive grade and on the other higher grades in the Executive grade. It also appears that although the petitioner had received a portion of his retiral benefits about one year after his superannuation, the respondent-Company had withheld a major portion of his retiral benefits on two grounds firstly, that he had not submitted the no objection certificates which he ought to have obtained from various departments as per Rules of the Company and secondly, that he has not vacated the company's quarter. The petitioner after retaining occupation of the quarter for a period of about three years, finally relented and vacated the quarter sometime in the month of January, 2007. It may be noted that even after the judgment was passed by the Division Bench in the L.PA and after having withdrawn his S.L.P. from the Supreme Court, the petitioner had filed another writ application before this Court with a direction to the respondents to pay him the moneys as claimed by him. The writ application was disposed of by a Single Bench of this Court by the order dated 14.2.2005 in W.P.(S) No. 579 of 2005 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and to dispose of the same by taking an appropriate decision and to pay the petitioner whatever dues was legitimately admissible and payable to him. When in spite of vacating the quarter and in spite of the directions of this Court passed in his writ petition, the Respondents did not respond to his demands, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 7. When in spite of vacating the quarter and in spite of the directions of this Court passed in his writ petition, the Respondents did not respond to his demands, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 7. It appears that pursuant to the directions of the Single Bench in the aforesaid writ application, the respondents had considered the representation of the petitioner and had made a fresh assessment of the monetary benefits which could be payable to the petitioner. 8. Shri G.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that on making the reassessment of the entire claim of the petitioner, the respondents were conscious of the directives contained in the order of the Division Bench in the aforementioned L.P.A. and after taking into account all the relevant aspects of the petitioner's claim, a final assessment was made whereby the amount of money under each head, which could be legitimately and legally payable to the petitioner, was calculated and the same was paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel refers in this context to Annexures-A and B to the counter affidavit which are the charts indicating the details of the various heads and the amount under each head which was assessed as the amounts payable to the petitioner. 9. Assailing the statements of account as contained in the aforementioned annexures, Shri Tiwary submits that the chart as produced by the respondents is totally misleading, erroneous and does not reflect the genuine demands raised by him. He adds that the respondents were bound to take into consideration the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge in the initial writ application filed by him whereby the respondents were directed to consider the grant of promotion to the petitioner from retrospective date. Shri Tiwary would explain that even in the judgment of the Division Bench, the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's case for his promotion in the light of the Rules of the Company which, according to him, would apply to him ever since the stage when he was inducted in the Non-Executive cadre and had completed minimum period of service tenure and acquired merit and eligibility for his promotion. 10. 10. From the above details and on going through the judgment of the Division Bench in the L.P.A., it is manifest that the petitioner's claim and the grounds in support thereof which he appears to have reiterated in the present writ application, were considered after hearing him and the counsel for the respondents and the Division Bench had taken a final decision on all the issues raised, as recorded in the concluding paragraph of its judgment. The directions in the judgment of the Division Bench clearly indicate that the respondents were required to consider the grant of promotion to the petitioner from the Non-Executive to Executive cadre in the next DPC selection process, which was scheduled to be held in the month of December, 2003 itself so that the petitioner may get advantage of his promotion before his retirement in January, 2004. 11. It is apparent from the judgment passed in the L.P.A. that the petitioner's demand for his promotion from retrospective date was also considered by the Division Bench but the same was not accepted nor was any directive given to the respondents in that regard. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court cannot possibly entertain the same grievance of the petitioner on the basis of the same grounds and pass any order on it as it would otherwise amount to reviewing the judgment of the Division Bench. 13. The respondents have come out with a categorical statement on affidavit that to the best of their knowledge and belief, they have paid all the admissible retiral dues to the petitioner. However, in spite of such declaration, it does appear that the respondents had withheld the payment of the petitioner's retiral benefits for a period of at least one year after the petitioner had retired. It is not known as to the extent of delay made in making payment of the entire retiral dues to the petitioner. If the delay was not occasioned by the petitioner himself, then the respondent-Company was certainly liable to compensate the petitioner for the delay in making payment of the retiral dues to him. Such compensation could have been made at least by paying interest on the principal amount. 14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Such compensation could have been made at least by paying interest on the principal amount. 14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to claim compensation by way of interest on the principal amount of his retiral dues on account of any delay in making such payment to him. The respondent shall consider the petitioner's representation in all fairness and pay a reasonable amount of interest on the principal amount of the retiral benefits paid to the petitioner for the period of delay caused in making such payment, unless of course such delay was not occasioned on account of any lapse on the part of the petitioner.