IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1221 of 2001 (M/S) (Old No. 11980 of 2000) [ J.P. Bhatt S/o Sri Bhim Dutt Bhatt R/o 89, Dangwar Magar, District Dehradun Presently residing at L –2 / 143, M.D.D.A. Colony, Post Office Defence Colony, Dehradun. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. Additional District Judge (II), Dehradun. 2. The Director Employment and Training, U.P., Lucknow. ...………… Respondents Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 08.09.1999, passed by respondent No. 1 (II Additional District Judge, Dehradun), in Execution Case No. 7 of 1988, whereby said court has disallowed the interest claimed by the petitioner (decree holder). A further mandamus has been sought commanding the respondent No. 2 (Director, Employment and Training, 2 U.P., Lucknow) to pay the interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the amount withheld by said respondent. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a retired employee who appears to have claimed certain post retiral dues. The litigation attained its finality with the order dated 11th February 1999, passed by the Apex court in Civil Appeal No. 5691 of 1994. The executing court (respondent No. 1) vide impugned order directed the respondent No. 2 to make payment of Rs. 2,40,942/- as outstanding dues towards retiral benefits apart from what has already been paid to the petitioner. However, the petitioner is still not satisfied and wants that the interest should also be paid to him. The executing court while passing the impugned order dated 08.09.1999, has observed that there is no direction to pay the interest on the amount payable. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, this Court finds that there is no illegality committed by the executing court in passing the order dated 08.09.1999. The petitioner has failed to show any order by which the interest was directed to be paid on the outstanding amount. Therefore, this petition is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. September 07, 2009. H. Negi