JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. - Heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Central Govt. Counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. [2] This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 09/01/2020 delivered in WP(C) No.867/2019 (M/s. Uptakhali Science Club v. Union of India and others). Despite their best persuasion, the writ petitioner-respondent did not get the payment due to them for implementation of skill development programme successfully. For withholding the payment, there had been no reason at all. Consequently, the writ petitioner-respondent filed the writ petition urging this Court for mandating the respondents (the appellants herein) to release the amount to the extent of Rs.9,93,000/- with interest. Learned Single Judge has observed that there is no dispute about the satisfactory completion of the training programme. There is no dispute about the computation of the claim as raised by the petitioner (the respondent herein). The respondents therefore, have been asked to release the said amount of Rs.9,93,000/- with reasonable interest for the late payment. Having observed thus, the following directions have been issued by the learned Single Judge: “(1) The amount of Rs.9,50,000/- already sanctioned shall be paid over within a period of 2(two) weeks from today. (2) Remaining amount of Rs.43,000/- shall also be released within the same period. (3) Within a period of 4(four) weeks from today, the respondents shall pay the simple interest on the entire amount of Rs.9,93,000/- from expiry of 3(three) months from the date of raising of the bills till actual payment @ 7.5% per annum.” [3] Mr. B. Majumder, learned Central Government counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that grievance of the appellant is confined to the direction of making payment of interest at 7.5% per annum from the day of expiry of three months from the day of raising of the bills till the actual payment is made. According to Mr. Majumder, in the scheme, there is no provision for providing interest for delayed payment and hence, the writ petitioner cannot claim any interest for the delayed payment. He has further submitted that since the fund was not available with the competent authority, the payment as due to the writ petitioner could not be made. [4] Having perused the record, we have come across two communications of the respondents. He has further submitted that since the fund was not available with the competent authority, the payment as due to the writ petitioner could not be made. [4] Having perused the record, we have come across two communications of the respondents. One communication dated 10.4.2018 has been issued by Handicrafts Promotion Officer of the Office of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Agartala (Annexure-21 to the writ petition). The other communication has recorded that the petitioner had implemented the assigned work. It has been observed further, having referred to the bills as follows: “Cross verified UC/GFR-19-A, Audited statement of accounts, Bank statement, verified bills/vouchers of the above mentioned sanction order has already been forwarded to Headquarter office and UCs are still pending at Hq. Level for Regional level recommendation” Thereafter, by the communication dated 02.08.2018 (Annexure-22) the said Officer has contended that they have become unable to settle the due to the writ petitioner, even though, the writ petitioner has completed the assigned work successfully. In that communication only, it has been observed that “delay of releasing your payments is true due to some policy changes by our deptt. But releasing of outstanding dues will depend on availability of fund at Headquarter’s office and also depends on competent authority.” [5] Mr. Majumder, learned Central Govt. Counsel has not projected any challenge to the observation of the learned Single Judge that there is no dispute about the computation of the claim placed by the writ petitioner. His only contention is that since there is no provision for payment of interest for the delayed payment, we should interfere with the direction of the leaned Single Judge directing payment of the interest as stated above. The interest has been charged for arbitrary withholding of the payment which is legitimately due to the writ petitioner. The respondents have accepted their failure in paying the bills. There had been apparent loss to the writ petitioner. To recoup that loss, learned Single Judge has directed for making payment of interest. We are unable to accept the plea of Mr. Majumder that since there is no provision for making payment of interest in the scheme, the respondents be exonerated from paying the interest as directed by the learned Single Judge. [6] As consequence of the above observation, this appeal stands dismissed. We are unable to accept the plea of Mr. Majumder that since there is no provision for making payment of interest in the scheme, the respondents be exonerated from paying the interest as directed by the learned Single Judge. [6] As consequence of the above observation, this appeal stands dismissed. Within one month from today, the payment or the reminder be made by the appellants to the respondent with interest as directed. No order as to costs.