JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the respondent-CSIR. 2. Applicant who is the writ petitioner, came before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench at Ranchi to seek interest over the gratuity, leave encashment and other amounts such as medical reimbursement and penal house rent relying upon a report dated 3rd September 2004 of a committee constituted by respondent no.3. This committee was constituted in order to ascertain whether there was deliberate delay in handing over charge of certain items within the control of the applicant. This report is at Annexure-III which the petitioner relies to show that the committee did not find him responsible for the delay. The aforesaid dues were paid after five years from the date of his retirement i.e. 31st January 2003. 3. Learned Tribunal has applied its mind to the rival contention of the parties and decided against the applicant. It has taken note of the order passed on the representation of the applicant dated 7th November 2008. The letter extracted in the impugned order indicates that no demand certificate, a pre-requisite for release of post-retiral dues was not submitted on account of certain delay in handing over the charge by the applicant and applicant continued to retain the official quarter till 2nd May 2005 for which he was also charged penal rent. Learned Tribunal was of the opinion that interest on delay in payment of retiral dues is awarded when there is no fault of the employee and the employee is under an obligation to obtain a no demand certificate prior to his retirement from the Department. Indeed there was delay in obtaining no demand certificate as certain items under his charge were not handed over. It appears that the committee constituted by the department deliberated over the issue, but no negligence or fault was attributed to the applicant. However, the fact remains that charge was not handed over of certain items by the applicant within time. Applicant had also delayed vacation of his official quarter over a period of two years and 4 months approximately. In such a case, the employer also cannot be blamed of deliberately delaying the release of certain post-retirement dues. 4. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record including the impugned order, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. In such a case, the employer also cannot be blamed of deliberately delaying the release of certain post-retirement dues. 4. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record including the impugned order, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.