JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 1.2.2019, passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge, in WP(S) No.7750 of 2017, whereby, the petitioner was denied the interest on the amounts of gratuity and leave encashment, for the period they were illegally recovered from the petitioner, till the date of the order passed by the High Court to refund the same, but the same was allowed only from the date of the order passed by the High Court to refund the same, since there was a delay in making of refund. 3. This appeal is filed after a delay of 44 days, and for condonation of the delay, I.A. No. 4006 of 2019 has been filed. 4. The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The appellant writ petitioner had approached this Court in WP(S) No.3587 of 2009, challenging the order dated 05.06.2009 passed by the respondents, for recovery of leave encashment amount and part of the gratuity amount from him. The said writ application was disposed of on 18.04.2016, quashing the impugned order of recovery with the direction to refund the recovered gratuity amount and leave encashment amount within a period of four weeks. In the said order, however, there was no direction for making the payment of interest to the petitioner. Though the order was passed by this Court on 18.4.2016, directing to refund the amount within a period of four weeks, but the amount was actually refunded to the petitioner on 9.3.2017. 5. The petitioner again approached this Court in WP(S) No.7750 of 2017, with a prayer for grant of interest on the recovered amount, from the date of its recovery, i.e.,05.06.2009. The said writ application has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 1.2.2019, taking note of the fact that there was no order of payment of interest in the order dated 18.04.2016, passed in WP(S) No.3587 of 2009. The Court, however noted that there was delay after the disposal of the writ application, in making the refund, as the refund was actually made on 9.3.2017. The Writ Court accordingly, rejected the prayer for interest for the period since 05.06.2009 till 18.04.2016, but directed the interest to be paid from 18.4.2016 till the actual payment, i.e., till 9.3.2017, @ 10% per annum. The Writ Court accordingly, rejected the prayer for interest for the period since 05.06.2009 till 18.04.2016, but directed the interest to be paid from 18.4.2016 till the actual payment, i.e., till 9.3.2017, @ 10% per annum. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the interest prior to 18.04.2016, w.e.f. 05.06.2009, when the recovery was made, has been denied by the Hon''ble Single Judge, on the ground that there was no order for payment of interest in the earlier writ application. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the Writ Court, rejecting the prayer for interest for the period since 05.06.2009 till 18.04.2016, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as the recovery was illegally made from the appellant, and in that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to the statutory interest for the said period as well. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that the order dated 18.04.2016, passed in WP(S) No.3587 of 2009, has been fully complied with, and there was no direction therein, for payment of any interest. 8. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides, and upon going through the record, we find that the recovery from the petitioner was held to be illegal, by order dated 18.4.2016, passed in WP(S) No.3587 of 2009, and the order of recovery was quashed with a direction to refund the amount illegally recovered from the petitioner. In the said order, however, there was no order of payment of any interest to the petitioner. If the appellant was aggrieved thereby, he ought to have challenged the order dated 18.4.2016, passed in WP(S) No.3587 of 2009, before the appropriate Court, which admittedly, he had not done. He also did not get the order clarified with regard to the payment of interest, by filing any review petition. He was rather, satisfied with the order, and after the amount was refunded on 9.3.2017, he filed another writ application, claiming interest for the entire period, which was denied to the appellant by the Writ Court, allowing the interest only for the period of delay after 18.4.2016, i.e., the date of the order passed in WP(S) No.3587 of 2009. 9. He was rather, satisfied with the order, and after the amount was refunded on 9.3.2017, he filed another writ application, claiming interest for the entire period, which was denied to the appellant by the Writ Court, allowing the interest only for the period of delay after 18.4.2016, i.e., the date of the order passed in WP(S) No.3587 of 2009. 9. We find no illegality in the impugned order dated 1.2.2019, passed in WP(S) No.7750 of 2017, in denying the interest to the petitioner prior to 18.4.2016, as there was no such order in favour of the petitioner in WP(S) No.3587 of 2009, which had attained finality, as the said order was never challenged by the appellant writ petitioner before the appropriate Court, nor the appellant got the aforesaid order clarified with respect to the payment of interest. 10. Since we do not find any merit in this LPA, no useful purpose is going to be served by condoning the delay in filing the appeal. As such the I.A. No.4006 of 2019 filed for condoning the delay stands dismissed. 11. Consequently this LPA is also dismissed, being barred by limitation and bereft of any merit.