JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for payment of interest on the retiral benefits w.e.f. 25.07.2008 till the date of actual payment. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The petitioner was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement by order dated 24.07.2008 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 26.09.2008. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner against the order of compulsory retirement was though not pressed, a direction was issued by this Court by order dated 12.04.2012 for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed disputing the claim raised by the petitioner for payment of interest on the amount of retiral benefits. It has been stated that the pension papers were not signed by the petitioner in time. Immediately after the order of compulsory retirement from service was passed, the pension papers were prepared and sent to the residential quarter at C.I.S.F., UCIL, Jadugoda, but the petitioner was found absent and therefore, the pension paper was pasted at the door of his quarter. Again, a request was made by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, UCIL Unit, Jadugoda for submitting the pension papers however, the petitioner did not sign the pension papers. In paragraph no. 5 of the counter-affidavit, the respondents have stated as under:- 5. “That with regard to the statement made in para 2 (a) it is stated that every possible effort had been made to get the pension papers signed by the petitioner for payment of pensionary benefits to him. Immediate after his compulsory retirement from service the pension papers were prepared and sent to his residential quarter at CISF Unit UCIL Jaduguda, but the petitioner was found absent from his residence. However, the copy of the pension papers was pasted at the door of his quarter. Further, he was requested by the Commandant, CISF Unit UCIL Jaduguda, again and again, but he had not signed and submitted his pension papers for final payment of his retiral benefits. Finally, Commandant, CISF Unit UCIL Jaduguda had sent a representative at his native place and found that the petitioner was not residing there. Accordingly, the concerned police station was informed and got the matter confirmed that the petitioner had left his native place. Finally, Commandant, CISF Unit UCIL Jaduguda had sent a representative at his native place and found that the petitioner was not residing there. Accordingly, the concerned police station was informed and got the matter confirmed that the petitioner had left his native place. Accordingly, Commandant, CISF Unit UCIL Jaduguda had published the matter of missing of petitioner, in the local newspaper. Hence, in absence of pension papers, duly signed by the petitioner, it was not possible to pay the retiral benefits. The action taken by the respondent is fair and justified and according to law. Therefore, the demand of interest on retiral benefits is quite unjust. Further, with regard to Para 2 (b) and 2 (c) it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of interest on retiral benefits as the petitioner had submitted an application dated 02.04.2011, addressed to DIG/CISF Hyderabad received in the office of Commandant, CISF Unit UCIL Jaduguda on 06.04.2011, requesting therein that only the arrears of sixth pay commission from January, 2006 to July, 2008 may be paid to him and other retiral benefits may be paid to him after finalization of the court case. He filed Writ Petition No. 6418 of 2008 against compulsory retirement. His case was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi on 12.04.2012 with directions for the petitioner to approach respondent No.4 within 10 days with the documents and direct the respondents to pay pensionary benefits within two weeks. Accordingly, pensionary benefits were paid to the individual. Hence the question of interest on the retiral benefits does not arise. The payment was delayed due to the petitioner's deliberate attempt of not signing the pension papers. Further, with regard to Para 2 (d) it is stated that the plea of the petitioner is not justified. Every effort had been made by the Commandant CISF Unit UCIL Jaduguda for getting the signature on the pension papers from the Petitioner as stated in Para 2(a) above, but the petitioner failed to submit the signed pension papers for final payment. Further, as per direction of Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 6418/2008, pension papers were received from the petitioner duly signed. Accordingly, final payment was made and paid to the petitioner immediately. Further, as per direction of Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 6418/2008, pension papers were received from the petitioner duly signed. Accordingly, final payment was made and paid to the petitioner immediately. Further with regard to Para 2(e) it is stated that the petitioner had submitted an application addressed to DIG/CISF Hyderabad requesting therein, that only the arrears of sixth pay commission from January, 2006 to July, 2008 may be paid to him and other retiral benefits may be paid to him after finalization of the Court Case. There were no delay from the part of the respondents in settling the pension case. It was due to the noncooperation of the petitioners, the delay was occurred. The Writ Petition pending in the High Court was not a bar for the petitioner to sign the pension papers. But, he failed to do it. Hence, the question of interest on the retiral benefits does not arise. Moreover, Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi issued Judgment Order dated 12.04.2012 stating that Respondent 4 i.e Commandant CISF Unit UCIL Jaduguda to process the payment of retrial benefits to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the Judgment Order dated 12.04.2012 and respondent4 i.e Commandant CISF Unit UCIL Jaduguda did the same in accordance with the order of Hon'ble High Court. Hence, the violation of Article 14,16 & 300A of the Constitution of India has not been made. Further, with regard to Para 2(f) it is stated that there was no exercise of power by the respondent. The action taken by the respondent i.e. Commandant CISF Unit UCIL Jaduguda, is within the rule and as per judgment order dated 12.04.2012 of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand, at Ranchi.” 5. In view of the aforesaid facts brought on record by the respondent in the counter-affidavit, I am not inclined to entertain the claim raised by the petitioner. The delay caused in payment was on account of laches on the part of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.