( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner retired from service on 30. 9. 2002. She alleges to have not been paid her retiral benefits of gratuity, balance provident fund and arrears of pension salary etc. by the respondents. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents may be directed to pay her entire balance retiral dues at the bank lending rate interest from the date it has become due or at 10% compound interest since the amount was kept by the respondents illegally with them. The counsel for the respondents placing reliance upon a judgment of the division Bench of this Court dated 6. 7. 2006 passed in Special Appeal no. 693 of 2006, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar and another Vs. Smt. Rajji submits that delay in payment was due to financial crunches and was not deliberate or willful and that in similar matters this Court has considered the question of rate of interest allowed simple interest at the lesser rate. The controversy in the Special Appeal was considered by the court that-

"this Special Appeal, under the Rules of the Court, is preferred against the judgment of the Honble Single Judge of this Court dated