JUDGMENT : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. Application to condone the delay of 655 days in preferring this Special Appeal is not opposed and the delay is, therefore, condoned. Delay Condonation Application stands disposed of. 2. This Special Appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2426 of 2017 dated 30.11.2017. The respondent-writ petitioner herein filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2426 of 2017 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the entire retiral benefits of the respondent-writ petitioner, with interest @ 18 per cent per annum, with effect from 01.05.2016 till the date of actual payment; and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner pension regularly, along with arrears of pension with interest @ 18 per cent per annum. 3. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge noted that the respondent-writ petitioner had completed the age of superannuation on 30.04.2016; he was, however, not paid his retiral benefits including pension and gratuity till 01.07.2017; he was paid 90 per cent of his General Provident Fund on 23.04.2016; leave encashment payment on 07.06.2016; final payment of 10% of GPF on 19.07.2016; provisional pension on 25.10.2016; and gratuity on 25.10.2016. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, recorded the submissions, urged on behalf of the State Government, that the respondent-writ petitioner had been given the provisional, as well as final payment, with regards his retiral benefits, by letter dated 12.09.2017 of the Treasury concerned; and the said amount was credited to the account of the respondent-writ petitioner on 30.10.2017. 4. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429 , wherein it was held that the pension and gratuity was not any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement, but was a valuable right and property in their hands, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants herein to pay simple interest @ 6 per cent p.a. for the delayed payment of retiral dues to the respondent-writ petitioner w.e.f. 01.05.2016 till the date of actual payment, preferably within six weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 5. 5. Though the order passed by the learned Single Judge is dated 30.11.2017, the appellants have not paid interest to the respondent-writ petitioner, as directed by the learned Single Judge, for the past nearly two years. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-State Government, would submit that the delay, in release of the retiral benefits of the respondent-writ petitioner, is because of his fault, and not for the fault of the appellants. When we asked him to draw our attention to the averments in this regard in the counter affidavit, learned Standing Counsel would refer to paragraphs 8 and 12 of his counter affidavit. All that is stated in the said paragraphs is that, as soon as the respondent-writ petitioner submitted his documents with regards his pension, his pension was processed and was completed; it was wrong to state that the respondent-writ petitioner had submitted his documents to the appellants within time; the respondent-writ petitioner was given provisional pension; he had not applied for regular pension, and hence monthly pension had not been given to him; and by letter dated 12.09.2017, final pension and gratuity had been sanctioned. 7. The counter-affidavit is extremely vague. It makes no mention of what documents were expected to be submitted by the respondent-writ petitioner, or the date on which he submitted such documents, or of the date on which the process, for determining his pension, had been initiated. In the absence of any such details being furnished, the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted for holding that the delay, in the release of the respondent-writ petitioner's retiral benefits, was unjustified. 8. In this context it must also be noted that, as against the respondent-writ petitioner's claim for payment of interest @ 18 per cent p.a., the learned Single Judge has awarded him only simple interest @ 6 per cent p.a. 9. The scope of interference in an intra-Court appeal is extremely limited. The learned Single Judge is not a Court sub-ordinate, since both he and the Division Bench exercise the very same jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is only if the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality, would interference be justified. The scope of interference in an intra-Court appeal is extremely limited. The learned Single Judge is not a Court sub-ordinate, since both he and the Division Bench exercise the very same jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is only if the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality, would interference be justified. As long as the view taken by the learned Single Judge is a possible view, even if the Division Bench were to be satisfied that the other possible view canvassed before it is more attractive, even then interference would not be justified. It is only if the view taken by the learned Single Judge is held not even to be a possible view, would interference be called for. We are satisfied that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is, undoubtedly, a possible view; and interference against such an order would, therefore, not be justified. 10. Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government, would express apprehension that the order under appeal, passed by the learned Single Judge, may well be cited as a precedent in other cases of a similar nature, claiming payment of interest. Such an apprehension is wholly unfounded. In case delay is attributable to the employee, for belated payment of retiral dues, it is always open to the State Government to furnish sufficient details; and satisfy the Court that the delay, in payment of the retiral dues of an employee, was for no fault of theirs, but was for the fault of the employee himself. Such a situation does not arise in the present case. 11. The Special Appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.