K. NATARAJAN, J.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner/applicant in the O.A. No.175/2022 on the file of Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi (hereinafter referred to as 'AFT') for granting reliefs as under :-

i. “To issue a Writ of Mandamus order or direction commanding the respondents to grant interest at the rate of 8% per annum for delayed payments in connection with the disbursement of 2nd service pension from DSC.

ii. To declare that the petitioner is entitled for 8% interests for delayed payments in connection with the disbursement of 2nd service pension from the date of discharge itself.

iii. Issue such other writ, order or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case”.

2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was the applicant before the AFT for granting 2^nd service pension. The same was allowed after condoning the shortfall of 11 months and 19 days of qualifying the service, and respondent Nos.2 & 3 were directed to issue the Pension Payment Order (hereinafter referred to as “PPO”) from the date of discharge from the 2^nd service in DSC after condoning the short fall of the above said days. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the respondents filed writ petition before this Court in WP(C) No.11753/2025 which came to be dismissed on 21.07.2025 thereby, the order of the AFT has been confirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Prior to that, the very petitioner already filed a Miscellaneous Application, M.A.No.95/2024 before the AFT for execution or implementation of the order passed by the AFT, which is still pending. Subsequent to the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondents, the petitioner filed this writ petition for seeking interest for delayed payment of pension as prayed in the above said para.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the normal course, the AFT awards interest while passing such orders, but in the present case, interest was inadvertently not granted. Therefore, it was argued that the petitioner is entitled to file the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay interest for the delayed period until implementation of the order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court reported in 2024 KHC 1078 in the case of Nandakumar P.V. vs. State of Kerala

5. Per contra, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents has strenuously objected to the writ petition, contending that there was no relief for interest claimed by the very petitioner in the O.A. filed before the AFT and the tribunal also not granted any interest. Therefore, the petitioner cannot file a separate writ petition seeking interest, as such relief was not sought in the O.A. itself filed before the Tribunal. Therefore, it is contended that the principles of resjudicata and Order II Rule 2 of CPC would apply in this case; and when he has not claimed any interest, he cannot claim in subsequent proceedings, which is not correct.

6. Further, the learned Central Government Counsel has contended that even in the statement of facts the petitioner counsel stated that the tribunal inadvertently omitted to grant interest. Such being the case, it is not the Forum to claim interest when it was not sought in the Original Application. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the writ petition. In support of his contention, the le