31st August, 2026 (D/L No.12) Ct. No.4 (SKB) W.P.S.T. 181 of 2023 Sajal Kumar Sau Versus State of West Bengal and others Mr. Anjan Banerjee, Ms. Reshmi Khatun … for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sruti Datta, Mr. Anindya Kanan, Ms. A. Agarwal … for the State. Mr. Suman Basu, Ms. Debipriya Ghosh … for the respondent no.6. 1. Affidavit of service is taken on record. 2. Heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioner/applicant. The writ petitioner, according to the averments made in the Original Application, retired on 30th June, 2015. He approached the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’) for a direction for payment of pensionary dues. The Tribunal has disposed of the Original Application directing the authorities to pay the final pension to the writ petitioner after processing his claim, which admittedly has been done. 3. It is, however, submitted by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner that the dues 2 were paid belatedly and, therefore, he was entitled to the interest on the amount of dues. The Original Application does not disclose which due was withheld. From the averments made in the Original Application, it is apparent that the petitioner got provisional pension for 58 months, which is admitted in paragraph 4(ix) of the petition. The Original Application has been filed within a year thereafter. 4. In so far as the GPF dues, the representation dated 12.12.2018 annexed by the petitioner discloses that the said dues were also paid. 5. There is no averment in O.A., as to the amounts withheld. It is apparent from a plain reading of the Original Application that the issue before the Tribunal was conversion of provisional pension to a final pension, which also was admittedly paid to the petitioner. 6. Under these circumstances, no case is made out of deprivation of any specific amount, for which the court can direct for grant of interest. 7. We find no reason to pass any orders in respect of the petitioner’s claim for interest. The order of the Tribunal, thus, does not require any interference in exercise of discretionary and 3 extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The writ petition is, thus dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)