JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent G.L. Bansal had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal being aggrieved by the omission of the petitioners to pay interest on the delayed payment of General Provident Fund amount which had become payable on account of his retirement from service with effect from 31.7.1994. The Tribunal, vide the impugned, order had allowed the application filed by the contesting respondent in part with the direction to the respondents to pay interest at the rate then applicable to the General Provident Fund excluding one month's period i.e. from 1.9.1994 to 14.10.1994, It may be noticed that the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960, contain the Rules regulating the payment of amount lying to the credit of subscriber on the date of his retirement from the Service. Rule 31 of the aforesaid. Rules clearly stipulates that when and subscriber quits the service, the amount standing to his credit in the Fund shall become payable to him. Further, the provisions contained under Rule 34(ii) of the Rules cast a duty on the Head of the Office Department to forward the details of the subscriber retiring or quitting service to the Account Officer indicating the recoveries effected against the advances which are still current and the number of instilments yet I to be recovered and also indicate the withdrawals, if any, taken by the subscriber after the period covered by the last statement of the subscriber's account sent by the Accounts Officer. Rule 34 (iii) of the Act further casts a duty on the Account Officer to issue an authority for the amount payable to the subscriber after verification at-least a month before the date of superannuation but payable on the date of superannuation. In the present case, it is not disputed that at the relevant time, an the information in regard to deposits and withdrawals made in the General Provident Fund Account of contesting respondent were available with the petitioners. No justifiable reason could be pointed out which could authorize the withholding of the payment which had become due to the respondent out of his General Provident Fund Account, to which he was entitled on the date of quitting the service in view of his attaining superannuation. The respondent Tribunal has issued the directions taking into consideration the provisions made in Rule 11(4) of the Rules reflected to hereinabove, which are squarely attracted. The respondent Tribunal has issued the directions taking into consideration the provisions made in Rule 11(4) of the Rules reflected to hereinabove, which are squarely attracted. It may be noticed that no administrative act or fiat can discard; destroy or annul the statutory provisions. It is, therefore, obvious that the statutory obligation cast upon the petitioners to make payment, as soon as it falls due along-with the interest in the manner provided ought to have been discharged, specially when the payment of the amount of provident Fund with all the details of the deposits in question, were available with the petitioners. There can be absolutely no justification for depriving the subscriber of the usufruct of the deposits lying to his credit when the payment could be made by .the unilateral act on the part of the petitioners. It would have been a different matter if the subscriber himself had faulted in receiving the amount put at his disposal. This is however. not the stand taken by the petitioners in this case. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on record no justifiable ground is made out allowing interference in the impugned order passed by respondent Tribunal. This writ petition, in the circumstances, is dismissed in limine.