JUDGMENT The special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 8 October 2015. The claim of the respondent who retired as a Branch Manager of the District Cooperative Bank Limited at Basti for the payment of (i) earned leave encashment; (ii) medical reimbursement; and (iii) arrears of salary pursuant to the sixth pay commission recommendations has been allowed with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. 2. The entitlement of the employee is not in dispute. Indeed, this appears also from the following extract from the judgment of the learned Single Judge which records the fact that the liability to pay is undisputed: "Counsel for the parties admit that the petitioner is entitled for earned leave encashment, medical reimbursement and arrears of salary as per the revised salary according to the 6th pay commission. In short respondents no.2 and 3 accept the liability of the above dues." 3. The Bank through its Board of Directors passed a resolution on 6 January 2011 not to pay dues with regard to medical reimbursement. This was on account of the poor financial condition of the Bank. On 31 July 2011, a decision was taken to postpone the payment of Sixth Pay Commission arrears on the ground of the Bank's poor financial condition. A similar decision was taken on 28 February 2014 in regard to the encashment of earned leave. These decisions in regard to the payment of dues are only an attempt to defer the actual payment, but did not relate to the liability to pay. The circular of 24 October 2013 of the Registrar which was relied upon during the course of the hearing of the special appeal only stipulates that the arrears for the period between 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013 which was on account of the second revision would not be payable. The claim of the respondent is in respect of the revision which took place under the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and which does not form a part of the aforesaid circular. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has fairly stated that the respondent does not claim anything under the circular dated 24 October 2013 referable to the second revision since the respondent had, in fact, retired on 30 November 2011. 5. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has fairly stated that the respondent does not claim anything under the circular dated 24 October 2013 referable to the second revision since the respondent had, in fact, retired on 30 November 2011. 5. Since the entitlement of the employee is not in dispute, the view of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. The entitlement of retiral dues is not a bounty, but a matter of right. Hence, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in directing the payment of the retiral dues does not call for interference. We may also note that in the rejoinder affidavit, which has been filed by the respondent, it has been stated that, as a matter of fact, the Bank had paid these benefits in the cases of several employees and now adopts a pick and choose policy. No case for interference has been made out in the special appeal. However, we grant a period of three months to make final payment in pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge. 6. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.