CWP No.214 of 2001. 12.8.2008. Present: Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents. The petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 7th December, 2000 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). The Learned counsel for the petitioner restricted the petitioner’s prayer to the extent that he be paid the interest on late payment of pension and gratuity only. The matter of pension and gratuity has been discussed in the judgment of the Tribunal in relief No.7(i)(h&J) and relief No.7(i)(k). Relevant record as ordered on the last occasion has been placed before us and the same has been perused by us. The petitioner had completed his formalities for pensionary benefits on 7th June, 1990 and thereafter the matter was referred to the Accountant General for sanction on 4th August, 1990 and the sanction was accorded by the Accountant General vide order dated 12th December, 1990 and the gratuity was released in favour of the petitioner on 13th March, 1991 and the pension on 11th April, 1991. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioner should have completed all the formalities regarding pensionary benefits by 31st December, 1989 since he was attaining the age of superannuation on 5th December, 1990 2 and in the light of the Government’s order would have finally retired on 31st December, 1990. We have perused the judgment passed by the Tribunal dealing with the delay part and we found reasonable explanation recorded by the Tribunal regarding the delay. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay caused because of the mistake and negligence on the part of the State. Therefore, the interest on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity be ordered by this Court by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner besides this, could not indicate any reason why this Court should show interference and set aside the judgment passed by the Tribunal, which we find a speaking and reasoned one. In view of the above, no interference is warranted under the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. 12th August, 2008. (Sanjay Karol), J. (tr)