APHC01055916200 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 15936 of 2005 Bench Sr.No:-3 [3506] N.Raghavaiah, Krishna District. ...Petitioner Vs. The District Cooperative Central Bank, Prakasam District ...Responden t ********** Advocate for Petitioner: DEVAKUMAR SALIKITI Advocate for Respondent: RAVI KUMAR C CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 12th February 2026 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking direction to the respondents to pay interest on retirement benefits, such as gratuity, leave salary, on account of belated payment for the period from 01.06.2003 to 26.12.2004 @9% per annum. 2. (a) Petitioner stated to have retired from service with respondent bank as Branch Manager on 31.05.2003. Even before he retired, he was facing departmental enquiry in pursuance to charge memo dated 13.04.2003 on account of certain financial irregularities. The enquiry officer, having concluded the enquiry, submitted report holding that the charges 2 CGR, J W.P. No.15936 of 2005 levelled against the petitioner were proved and therefore, opined to recover the amounts from the petitioner. (b) Assailing continuation of departmental proceedings and also withholding of retirement benefits, petitioner preferred W.P. No.22346 of 2003. The writ petition came to be allowed by order dated 31.08.2004 holding that continuing departmental proceedings post-retirement were illegal and also directed the respondent bank to pay the retirement benefits. (c) Aggrieved by the same, the bank had preferred W.A. No.1737 of 2004. The Hon’ble Division Bench dismissed the said writ appeal by order dated 23.11.2004 and ultimately reiterated the direction to release the retirement benefits within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In that view of the matter, the respondents stated to have released the retirement benefits for ₹4,11,444/- on 26.12.2004. Later, petitioner had come up with claim for interest @9% for said delayed payment. As the same came to be rejected, petitioner preferred present writ petition. 3 CGR, J W.P. No.15936 of 2005 3. Heard Sri S.Karunakar, learned counsel, representing Sri S.Devakumar, learned counsel for petitioner on record and Sri C.Ravi Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent bank. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner, reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of writ petition, contended that as the retirement benefits were paid admittedly beyond the retirement and that too at the intervention of the writ court, such delayed payment has to be compensated by way of interest quantified @9% per annum. 5. Learned standing counsel for respondent contended that the earlier directions issued both in writ petition as well as writ appeal merely directed the respondents to settle the retirement benefits and thereafter, the bank had paid an amount of ₹4,11,444/- on 26.12.2004. Therefore, any further claim of interest is not flowing from aforesaid directions. 6. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. 7. The petitioner, having chosen to ventilate his grievance for non-payment of retirement benefits, preferred W.P. No.22346 of 2003, whereunder, while allowing the said writ petition, the respondents were directed to pay the retirement benefits. 4 CGR, J W.P. No.15936 of 2005 Further, the Division Bench also confirmed the said order and, in turn, directed the respondents to settle the amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 8. In that background, firstly, the petitioner had not chosen to make any claim of interest at the earlier instances when writ petition was preferred, nor a request for interest was made when the writ appeal came to be dismissed. Having accepted the amounts after the orders passed by this Court, a claim for interest has been pressed into service. Moreover, petitioner has not shown any specific provision which entitles him to claim interest. 9. This Court, therefore, exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not inclined to enter into such claims and that too mere prayer for interest cannot be entertained. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ss