The court considered the financial constraints of the respondents and prevailing interest rates in modifying the judgment to allow payment with simple interest at the rate of 6%.

( 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 22. 5. 2006 allowing the writ petition of the sole respondent with the direction that the appellants shall make payment of retiral dues and pension of the petitioner-respondent with compound interest at the rate of 10% per annum from due date till the date of payment within a period of two months and further shall continue to pay pension provided her service is pensionable, month to month as and when it falls due. During the course of submission learned counsel for the appellants confined his submission mainly to the rate of interest awarded by the honble Single Judge. He contended that the delay in the payment was due to financial crunches and was not deliberate or willful. It is also submitted that in similar other matters this Court has allowed simple interest at the lesser rate. He further submits that the Nagar Nigam is already facing great hardship on account of financial constraint and thus, it would be equitable in the interest of justice that the rate of interest may be at least lower and simple. It is further submitted that in the backdrop of the financial condition of the Nagar Nigam grant of compound interest at the rate of 10% per annum is highly excessive and would cause great hardship to the Nagar Nigam which has to prove civic amenities to the citizens. He further placed reliance of the judgment dated 6. 12. 2005 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33804 of 2004 wherein the appellant was respondent and submitted that the grievance was identical to that of the petitioner respondent and the Honble Court having considered all aspects of the matter allowed 6% simple interest on the arrears of the retiral benefits. It is also submitted that it is not the case where no retiral benefits were paid to the petitioner, but in fact after retirement all the retiral benefits were paid from time to time. Subsequently, with the revised pay scale of pension and gratuity, some arrears accrued, which could not be paid to the petitioner on account of acute financial crisis prevailing in Nagar Nigam. The period of arrears of revised pension and gratuity is May 2004 to January 2005 and March 2006 to June 2006. He, therefore, submits that non-payment of the aforesaid arrears of revised benefits was not deliberate but for financial crisis, which was beyond their control. "

( 2 ) THE Court in the operative portion of the judgment dated 6. 7. 2006 held that-Learned counsel for the respondent, opposing the appeal, submitted that the judgment impugned in this appeal does not require any interference. He, however, admitted that all the retiral benefits were actually paid in time and the dispute pertains only to the revised gratuity and pension for the period as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. Thus, it appears from the submissions made before us