2 @ W.A. N0. 33312011 period of 4 weeks. Accordingly, the respondent made a representation on 30.09.2007. Various correspondence inter-3e took place between the authorities of the appellants and nothing could be done prior to 19.02.2009. However, on 19.02.2009, the respondent received the first cheque of Rs. 96,834/. Thereafter on various applications, the respondent received Rs. 6,00,000/~ towards the final settlement. HOWever, the respondent was deprived of the interest against the amount, which was due to him since 30.09.2001. The respondent, therefore, filed writ petition (S) No. 4316/2009, in which learned Single Judge called for a reply and after considering the reply filed by the State authorities, allowed the writ petition and directed the State authorities to pay interest @ of 9% per annum to the respondent on the amount paid to him from the date when it became due i.e. from the date of retirement till payment was made. it was also directed that the payment as aforesaid shall be made within a period of 2 months from the date of passing of the impugned order. The cost of Rs. 10,000l- was also awarded in favour of the respondent. Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Advocate General for the appellants, argued that the view taken by the Writ Court is unreasonable. We have heard Mr. Kachhawaha at length and have also perused the records of the writ appeal as also writ petition. The Writ Court has held that though the payment of retrial benefits were due on the date of the retirement of the respondent, but the retrial dues were not paid in time and even after a direction in the writ petition. earlier tiled by the respondent that the dues shall be settled within 4 weeks, the State did not act in reasonable manner and ultimately a very long time was consumed even for making the first payment of Rs. 96,834l- on 1902:2009. it is on all these grounds, the Writ Court took the view that the State/appellants were liable to pay interest to the respondent. n due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants/State and the grounds taken in the writ appeal, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order' passed by the Writ Court. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. / ‘1 Sd/— i :‘SunilKumar Sinha ~ ' ,l Judge Sdl~ Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge I I ' Rahul " ,O \ l