Judgment : M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.544 of 2008, whereby an order came to be passed in favour of the first respondent for a sum of Rs.77,187/- along with interest admissible on G.P.F. deposits. 2. Concededly, the husband of the first respondent one Mr.Narayanan, while he was working as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (ASPO), Gudiyatham sub division, was admitted in Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore and got treatment and he also underwent operation for ulcer. He took treatment from 31.5.2003 to 7.7.2003 and he was discharged on 8.7.2003. After discharge from the hospital, the medical bills were submitted for reimbursement, enclosing in-patient bill for a sum of Rs.77,187.03 given by Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore and also for a sum of Rs.1,806/-towards the cash receipt of Apollo Hospital. A representation was made on 29.9.2003 for reimbursement. The employee retired on 30.9.2003 on attaining super annuation and he died on 22.5.2006. The claim was made and it was kept pending for a long time. 3. The Authorities restricted the medical charges and granted only a sum of Rs.56,111/-and disallowed the remaining amount in respect of the claim of Rs.1,806/-. In so far as the receipt issued by the Apollo Hospital is concerned, the applicant did not file any connecting document. It was actually challenged before the Administrative Tribunal. It was contested by the Department. After making an enquiry and looking into the materials available on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim made by the applicant, by allowing the medical reimbursement bill for a sum of Rs.77,187/-along with interest from 1.10.2003 till the date of payment admissible on G.P.F. Deposits. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been brought forth by the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that insofar as the order of the Administrative Tribunal to the extent of allowing the claim of Rs.77,187/-is concerned, the petitioners have no quarrel. But insofar as awarding interest is concerned, it should not have been allowed, because it was only on the amount which was sought for on the basis of medical reimbursement and also it is not a fit case where interest could be ordered and hence that part of the order has to be set aside. 5. But insofar as awarding interest is concerned, it should not have been allowed, because it was only on the amount which was sought for on the basis of medical reimbursement and also it is not a fit case where interest could be ordered and hence that part of the order has to be set aside. 5. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also looking into the materials available on record, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case even for an admission of the writ petition. Admittedly, the employee, who was in Postal service in Gudiyatham as Assistant Superintendent, had treatment from 31.5.2003 to 7.7.2003 and shortly thereafter, a claim was made on 29.9.2003 and the same was kept pending for a long time without any reason whatsoever. 6. It is pertinent to point out that pending the claim, the employee died in the year 2006 and the claim was continued by his wife/applicant. The writ petitioners could not put forth any valid reason as to why the said delay had occurred and why they have taken the decision that the employee was entitled to only Rs.56,111/-. It is quite indicative of the fact that due to the lapse of six years, during which period the employee himself died, the claim was persuaded by his wife, first respondent herein. 7. The interest awarded by the Tribunal is justified on the ground of delay. The claim was made for reimbursement of the medical charges and the same was pending for six long years and the department had no explanation to offer in respect of such inordinate delay. In such circumstances, it was a fit case where interest has got to be ordered. The Tribunal has awarded interest only at the rate admissible on GPF deposits, which in the opinion of the Court, is reasonable. Hence, the writ petition does not carry any merit and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is also dismissed. No costs.