Judgment :- The writ petition has been filed for a limited prayer for grant of interest in settling the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity. 2. The petitioner retired as a Sanitary Inspector on 37. 2000. Prior to his retirement, audit objection was raised on 20.7.2000 stating that at the time of his appointment, the petitioner over aged and the appointment committee should relax the condition. The Corporation processed and sent the file to the Health Department on 211. 2000 and the same was placed before the Commissioner of Corporation on 21. 2001. Thereafter, it was considered and approved by the appointment committee on 2. 2001. Immediately thereafter, on 22. 2001, 75% of DCRG was paid to the petitioner. The balance 25% of the DCRG was paid on 19. 2003 after receipt of the no objection from the various departments, which came to be issued on 6. 2003. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that after the grant of approval by the appointment committee, 75% of the DCRG was paid and after receipt of no objection, within a period of three months, the balance amount of 25% has been paid and therefore, there is no question of payment of interest. Assuming without admitting that there is some delay, it is due to administrative reasons and it is not deliberate or intentional. 4. Insofar as the age relaxation is concerned, the respondent explanation is that it took some time for the department to go into the old records relating to the appointment of the petitioner and thereby, reasonable time was consumed in receiving papers from various departments and processing the same. Therefore, the delay has occurred. As regards the balance amount of 25% of DCRG is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner served in various capacity. His file for release of balance DCRG was circulated to various departments for their approval and therefore, there was some delay. This stand is acceptable. The delay does not appear to be intentional but a bonafide administrative delay. The same has been explained properly. There was no deliberate act on the part of the respondents to withhold the balance DCRG amount. The original file was produced before this Court. The several communications between the departments clearly show that the file kept moving from place to place. The delay has been reasonably explained. The same has been explained properly. There was no deliberate act on the part of the respondents to withhold the balance DCRG amount. The original file was produced before this Court. The several communications between the departments clearly show that the file kept moving from place to place. The delay has been reasonably explained. There appears to be no deliberate intention to delay the file and make the payment of DCRG to the petitioner. The primary reason in this case appears to be want of relaxation of the age by the appointment committee for which, the respondents cannot be held responsible. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to grant the relief of payment of interest to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.