JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The controversy in present writ petition lies in a narrow compass, just claiming interest @12% p.a. on the delayed payment of his retiral dues, which was paid to him after a delay of two and a half years, after his superannuation. 3. The facts of the case shorn-off unnecessary details are that the petitioner was posted as Deputy Logging Officer on regular basis, in respondents-Uttarakhand Forest Corporation and he was retired on superannuation from Tanakpur Logging Division on 31.12.2012. After his retirement, the retiral dues, such as gratuity, leave encashment and other funds were not given to the petitioner, which compelled him to file a writ petition bearing WPSS No.2249 of 2014 L.D. Gola Vs. M.D. Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation and others. 4. During the pendency of the said writ petition, on 14.05.2015, petitioner was paid his all retiral dues and amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid towards gratuity, while, Rs.6,12,200/- was paid against leave encashment. The said writ petition was subsequently dismissed for default vide order dated 18.05.2015. 5. Since, on the delayed payment, which was made to the petitioner after the delay of around 02 years 04 months 14 days, no interest was paid to the petitioner, he filed the present writ petition claiming interest as stated above. 6. Earlier, the present writ petition was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by reason of judgment and order dated 06.04.2017, directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the interest @9% per annum on the delayed pensionary/retiral dues. 7. The matter was taken up to the Special Appeal filed by the respondent-Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation in Special Appeal No.479 of 2017, Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation and others Vs. L.D. Gola, judgment and order dated 06.04.2017 was quashed and the matter was relegated to the Single Bench of this Court to decide the lis between the parties after giving opportunity to respondent for filing counter affidavit. 8. L.D. Gola, judgment and order dated 06.04.2017 was quashed and the matter was relegated to the Single Bench of this Court to decide the lis between the parties after giving opportunity to respondent for filing counter affidavit. 8. After remand of the matter, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation and in the said counter affidavit, it has been pleaded by the respondent-Corporation that a time extension application for execution of work of lot no.79, 80, 81 of 1999-2000 for Rs.5,90,700/- was pending before the forest department in arbitration matter and since, the petitioner was Section Officer during that period, he was required to complete the work of aforesaid lot nos., within the time prescribed by the Forest Department. While issuing the said lot to the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, the petitioner was responsible for not getting the work completed within the said time frame and subsequently, penalty of Rs.34,02,939/- was imposed upon the respondent-Forest Corporation by the Forest Department and an arbitration case was pending before the Arbitrator. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-Forest Corporation that due to this reason i.e. laxity on the part of the petitioner, a penalty was imposed upon respondent-Forest Corporation, which was subjudice in the arbitration, hence, there was a delay in making the payment of retiral dues to the petitioner. 10. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-Forest Corporation in the counter affidavit that earlier writ petition bearing WPSS No.2249 of 2014, L.D. Gola Vs. M.D. Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation and others, was got dismissed in default, therefore, the petitioner cannot bring the present writ petition. 11. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-Forest Corporation that the payment of retiral dues was made to the petitioner was subject to the final outcome of the writ petition (S/S) No.2249 of 2014 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any interest in the delayed payment. 12. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties in the writ petition and heard learned counsel for the parties extensively. 12. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties in the writ petition and heard learned counsel for the parties extensively. So far as the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-Forest Corporation regarding the penalty being imposed upon the department due to laxity on the part of the petitioner for non-payment of retiral dues is concerned, there is no force in the aforesaid submission simply for the reason that the petitioner has never been departmentally proceeded by the respondent-Forest Corporation for the said laxity and further the payment was made by them on 14.05.2015. 13. In this view of the matter, respondent-Corporation cannot take shelter behind the cause, which has been given by it in the counter affidavit for reasons stated above. 14. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent/Forest Corporation regarding that the payment made was subject to the final outcome of writ petition (S/S) no.2249 of 2014, L.D. Gola Vs. M.D. Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation and others, is concerned, the said argument falls short of merit for the reason that in principles, when a case is dismissed for default or for non-prosecution, the petitioner/plaintiff cannot be precluded to bring a fresh suit/petition on the same cause of action. The principles as enshrined under Order 9 Rule 4 of CPC can be taken note of to appreciate aforesaid argument. 15. The writ petition earlier filed was dismissed for default and since, in that writ petition, the entire payment was made, the petitioner was within its right to file the present writ petition only for payment of interest on the delayed payment of his retiral dues. 16. With these observations, writ petition is finally allowed with a direction to respondent-Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation to pay to the petitioner interest @9% per annum on the delayed pensionary retiral dues, from the date of his entitlement till actual payment is paid. 17. No order as to costs. 18. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.