Sanjay Misra,J. This special appeal arises from a judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 18 November 2013. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition has declined to issue a direction to award interest to the appellant on his retiral dues which was the subject matter of his grievance. 2. The appellant was suspended from service on 2 December 1999 pending enquiry on the allegation that he was guilty of negligence or fraud in carrying out mutation entries. Against the said order of suspension, he filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 52474 of 1999, wherein an interim order was passed on 14 December 1999, by which the suspension was stayed. Thereupon, pursuant to the interim order, the appellant was permitted to work on the post in question. The appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 January 2007. The writ petition was dismissed in default on 21 February 2007. A fresh writ petition, bearing Writ Petition No. 32764 of 2007 was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the authorities were justified in proceeding to conclude the disciplinary proceedings and directed that appropriate orders in accordance with law be passed within three months. The learned Single Judge also directed that the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings will be followed by any order that may be required to be passed in respect of the emoluments of the appellant. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings were concluded on 27 August 2010 by recording an adverse entry and the retiral dues were paid to the appellant on 5 October 2010. 3. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, provisional pension was being paid to the appellant. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition noted the observation of the competent authority that there was no deliberate or intentional delay of the department in the payment of retiral benefits. Hence, the learned Single Judge found that there was no perversity in the order of the competent authority. 4. No statutory provision has been pointed out to the court in appeal entitling the appellant to the payment of interest. After the appellant retired, he was paid provisional pension. No material has been placed before the court that will indicate that the inquiry was delayed deliberately or intentionally by the department. 4. No statutory provision has been pointed out to the court in appeal entitling the appellant to the payment of interest. After the appellant retired, he was paid provisional pension. No material has been placed before the court that will indicate that the inquiry was delayed deliberately or intentionally by the department. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the the order of the learned Single Judge in a special appeal. 5. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________