JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioner, who is a retired employee of the South Eastern Railway had filed O.A. No. 455 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack for payment of his retrial benefits. He also prayed for payment of interest at the rate of 18% for the delay in payment of Pension, Gratuity, P.L Bonus, salary for January, 1996, Provident Fund dues and Group Insurance benefits. The said Original Application was heard on 01.1.2002 and the Petitioner argued his case in person. The learned Counsel for the South Eastern Railway was also present. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the South Eastern Railway that all the benefits claimed by the Petitioner had already been released in his favour and the Petitioner also submitted before the Tribunal that he had received Rs. 1,48,000/- and was also entitled to receive a further sum of Rs. 1,73,000/- towards commuted value of pension for which instruction had also been given to the State Bank of India. In view of such statement made by the Petitioner, the Tribunal disposed of the Original Application holding that there remains nothing to be adjudicated in the said Original Application. The Petitioner thereafter filed a review petition bearing R.P. No. 02 of 2003 on the ground that the Tribunal while disposing of the Original Application on the basis of the statement made by the Petitioner, did not allow interest for the delay in payment of the retrial benefits. The said review petition having been rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 01.3.2005, this writ application has been filed. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in course of hearing of the Original Application no lawyer appeared for the Petitioner and he argued the case himself. According to the learned Counsel, on the basis of the statement made by the learned Counsel for the South Eastern Railway that all the retirement dues have been paid, when a question was put to the Petitioner by the Tribunal, out of nervousness, though he admitted to have received the retired dues, could not pray for payment of interest for delayed payment and accordingly, the Tribunal also did not look into the said prayer made in the Original Application and disposed of the same holding that nothing further remained for adjudication. As it appears from the averments made in the writ application, the Petitioner while working in the cadre of O.S. Grade-I in the office of the Chief Engineer, Construction, Cuttack was put under suspension on 21.8.1991 in connection with a Vigilance Case and while continuing on suspension, he retired on 31.1.1996. He was ultimately acquitted of the charges in the Vigilance Case in October, 1998 and not a single pie had been paid to him till he was acquitted of the charges. Till 2001 nothing having been paid to him, he approached the Tribunal and by virtue of an interim order he started getting provisional pension. During pendency of the Original Application, he was paid his retiral benefits. Therefore, admittedly there has been delay at least from 1998 till 2001 in payment of the retired benefits. 3. The ground taken by the South Eastern Railway in the review petition for such delay is that the entries in the leave calculation sheets from the date of joining till 1991 had not been attested by any officer and, therefore, permission had to be obtained from the competent authority to validate the old records and in the process there was some delay. The Petitioner also did not co-operate and only in the year 2000 when it was decided that the date of retirement of the Petitioner was 31.1.1996, he signed the documents for settlement of the retirement benefits in the month of August, 2000 and for the above two reasons, thee was delay in payment of the benefits. The Tribunal while dismissing the review came to hold that the Petitioner having not been able to prove that there was no lack of co-operation from his side in settling his retrial dues, he was not entitled to interest. We are unable to accept such a finding since it is the South Eastern Railway, who took the plea by making a bald statement that there was non-cooperation from the side of the Petitioner. Law is well settled that specific plea taken by a party has to be proved by that party. Railway administration took a plea that there was non-cooperation from the side of the Petitioner and it was for them to prove the said fact and the Petitioner is not required to prove that there was no lack of co-operation from his side. Railway administration took a plea that there was non-cooperation from the side of the Petitioner and it was for them to prove the said fact and the Petitioner is not required to prove that there was no lack of co-operation from his side. Admittedly the Petitioner retired from service in 1996 while under suspension and was acquitted of the charges in the Vigilance Case on 15.10.1998. There was no reason for causing any further delay after acquittal from the criminal charges, in payment of the retirement benefits. The Railway administration has admitted that due to non-attestation of the entries in the leave calculation sheets from the date of joining in service till 1991 there was delay and permission from the competent authority had to be obtained to validate the records. There is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner at any point of time was called to attend the office for signing the pension papers. In absence of such documents, the delay in finalizing any payment of the benefits to the Petitioner cannot be attributed to him, he having retired from service since 1996. We are therefore of the view that the Tribunal came to an erroneous finding that under such circumstances, it was for the Petitioner to prove that he did not lack co-operation for settling his benefits. 4. The other question raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties is that whether in a review such relief can be granted. Admittedly there was a prayer in the Original Application for payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum for delayed payment of the dues. The Tribunal while disposing of the Original Application on the basis of the statement made by the Petitioner did not look into the said prayer and, therefore, erroneously held that there was nothing more to be adjudicated in the said Original Application. Had the Tribunal looked into the prayer for payment of interest, it could have adjudicated the said question. The Tribunal having not at all adjudicated one of the prayers in the Original Application, the review petition in respect of such prayer was maintainable and the Tribunal was competent to deal with the said prayer in the review petition. 5. Had the Tribunal looked into the prayer for payment of interest, it could have adjudicated the said question. The Tribunal having not at all adjudicated one of the prayers in the Original Application, the review petition in respect of such prayer was maintainable and the Tribunal was competent to deal with the said prayer in the review petition. 5. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal in the review petition and direct that the Petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% (nine per cent) per annum for delayed payment of the retirement dues from 15.10.1998 when he was acquitted of the criminal charges till the date of payment. Such interest be calculated and paid to the Petitioner within four months from the date of communication of this order. Requisites for communication of this order to the opposite parties be filed within one week. Writ petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed