JUDGMENT Special Appeal No. 227 of 2016 has been filed against the judgement and order dated 12.2.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition no. 6223 of 2016 wherein learned Single Judge has proceeded to pass following order: "Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 15.12.2015, whereby his claim for payment of interest on account of delayed release of retiral dues has been rejected. Petitioner contends that since he had superannuated on 31.7.2014 and the retiral dues have been paid after lapse of nearly 9 months, as such, he is entitled for payment of interest. From the materials, which appears on record, it transpires that the respondents had earlier terminated the services of petitioner, which order was subsequently set aside in appeal. There was an issue with regard to grant of benefits for the period petitioner has remained out of employment and departmental correspondence in this regard had contributed to some delay. From the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents was arbitrary, inasmuch as reasons for delay have been noticed in the order itself. Although delay of about 9 months in release of retiral dues is admitted on record, but considering the facts and circumstances, noticed above, this Court finds no error in the order of the Regional Officer, refusing to grant interest to the petitioner for such delay in release of retiral dues. The writ petition stands dismissed." 2. On the matter being taken up today, Sri Anil Kumar Yadav is submitting before this Court that his client is entitled for the interest on delayed payment and accordingly requisite relief ought to have been accorded by the learned Single Judge. 3. The said submission has been resisted by Sri Mangla Prasad Rai by contending that objective consideration has been done by the authority concerned and the learned Single Judge has rightly proceeded not to intervene with the action so taken. 4. After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual situation that is so emerging that the petitioner has been superannuated on 31.7.2014 and retiral dues have been paid to him after lapse of nearly nine months. 4. After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual situation that is so emerging that the petitioner has been superannuated on 31.7.2014 and retiral dues have been paid to him after lapse of nearly nine months. This much is reflected from the record that earlier services of the petitioner has been disengaged and the said order has been subsequently set aside in appeal and there was an issue with regard to grant of benefits for the period the petitioner remained out of employment and departmental correspondence has contributed to some delay. 5. Once such is the background of the case and bona fides of the department is not at all under doubt and from the averments there has been correspondence ongoing for the period petitioner was out of employment as such in the fact of the case as it cannot be presumed that action of the department in any way is arbitrary and there has been so much of delay that warranted ensuring payment of interest. 6. In view of this, once decision has been taken refusing to grant interest and learned Single Judge has confirmed the said view, in view of this, there is no occasion or reason for us to take a different or contrary view and specially keeping in view the delay that is reflected from the record and for the same there exists valid reason. 7. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.