SUSANTA CHATTERJI, J. ( 1 ) ). A very short point has arisen in the instant case inasmuch as the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate Writ to command the respondent to make payment towards the interest on the Provident Fund amount of the petitioner for the month of September 1992. The 45 grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 4,40,209. 00 for the month of September 1992, as the cheque was not remitted till 25th day of September 1992 as per the Scheme. ( 2 ) ). Mr. M. R. Anand, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the various documents on record indicating, inter alia, that although the cheque is dated 24th September 1992, it was sent to the Bank by a forwarding letter dated 29th September 1992 and it was despatched on 30th September 1992. There is letter of the Bank showing that the same was sent for clearance subsequently. It is further submitted that notwithstanding the date appearing on the cheque as 2-9-1992, the same would be of no effect unless it is remitted within the period as indicated in the Scheme Delay in remitting the cheque would not permit awarding payment of interest to the petitioner. ( 3 ) ). Affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Ajmera, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has very nicely argued that the authorisation as appearing in the Scheme will not entail the authorities to remit the cheque by 25th day of the particular month. He submitted that authorisation of payment may be made within 25th day of particular month, but if there is any delay in the ministerial work in despatching, the same cannot be construed as a clog on the part of the administration. ( 4 ) ). With great anxiety this Court has considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the respective parties. The relevant para 60 (2) (b) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, envisages inter alia, that in the case of a claim for the refund under paragraph 69 or 70, interest shall be payable upto the end of the month preceding the date on which the final payment is authorised irrespective of the date of receipt of the claim from the claimant concerned. Provided that interest upto and for the current month shall be payable on the claims which are authorised on or after the 25th day of a particular month along with actual payment after the end of the current month. Mr. Ajmera has laid much emphasis on the word authorisation. According to his submission authorisation does not mean actual payment. There is no scope for avoiding the ministerial acts in despatching the cheque and the same will not entitle the petitioner to claim any interest and particularly to choose a writ Court to consider a claim of interest, which may be a disputed question of fact. ( 5 ) ). The entire spirit of the Scheme as to the claim of interest is to promote the prompt acts on the part of those who are supposed to release the payment and who are expected to receive the payment. In the instant case, the cheque is dated 24th September 1992 but without remitting the said cheque within the time prescribed, the authorisation of the payment becomes meaningless. The claim for interest can only arise when there is authorisation of payment beyond 25th day of the month as done in the instant case. Back-dating the cheque or keeping the same without being despatched, would not amount proper authorisation within the scope and spirit of the scheme. The court is of the view that effective authorisation must mean issuance of the cheque being remitted within the stipulated time and the same will fulfil the purpose and spirit of the scheme behind. If the cheque has not been remitted within 25th day of month, notwithstanding the date of the issuance of the cheque on an earlier date, it will not absolve the liability of the administration to make the payment of the interest according to law. Since, in the present case the cheque has been despatched on 30-9-1992, the petitioner is entitled to claim the interest. Such interest should be paid by the respondent within six weeks from the receipt of order of this Court. Liberty is further reserved to the petitioner to make representation for further interest, on the interest if the payment is not effected within the time stipulated. This petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. (VSM)Petition allowed. .