Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first Respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 16.12.2005 and to pass suitable orders directing him to issue revised authorisation to the third Respondent through the second Respondent to draw Rs.2,92,057/- in consonance with the Account Slip dated 23.06.2005 issued by the first Respondent for the period 2004-2005 relating to the Petitioner's GPF Account No.46946/G.A. 2. The Petitioner is a retired Assistant Director in the Local Fund Audits Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. According to him, he had put in 23 years of service as a Government servant. He was on other duty as Lecturer in Rural Extension Training Centre at Bhavanisagar, Erode District. The Petitioner opted for voluntary retirement. His request to proceed on voluntary retirement was accepted by the State Government. He was permitted to retire on the Afternoon of 04.09.1998 by the Government as per G.O.Ms.No.478 dated 04.09.1998. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that while he was in service, he was contributing and subscribing amounts to the General Provident Fund. His General Provident Fund Account Number is 48946/G.A. As per the slip issued by the first Respondent for the period 2004-2005, his General Provident Fund closing balance was Rs.2,53,445/-. The pay commission arrears was Rs.31,567/-. The VI Pay Commission arrears was Rs.7,045/-. The total amount was Rs.2,92,057/-. 4. The plea of the Petitioner is that the first Respondent issued authorisation to the third Respondent/the Principal, Rural Extension Training Centre, Bhavanisagar, to draw a sum of Rs.,1,37,783/- only as per the letter dated 25.10.2005 in No.GPF/22/6/ FW-252-2005/ C5-238/2005-2006/DC-42/D.R.-1451-1452. 5. The pith and substance of the contention of the Petitioner is that when his G.P.F. Account No.48946/G.A. as on 23.06.2005 indicated the closing balance of Rs.2,92,057/- as per the Account Slip dated 23.06.2005, the first Respondent/the Principal Accountant General (A & E),Tamil Nadu, Chennai should have issued an authorisation slip to the Petitioner to draw Rs.2,92,057/-. But the first Respondent issued authorisation on 25.10.2005 to draw only a sum of Rs.1,37,783/- which was per se illegal and invalid in law. 6. But the first Respondent issued authorisation on 25.10.2005 to draw only a sum of Rs.1,37,783/- which was per se illegal and invalid in law. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner submitted his representation dated 14.12.2005 to the second and third Respondents and that the said representation was received by the first Respondent on 19.12.2005 and since no action was taken, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in filing the present Writ Petition. 7. The relief sought for by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition relates to the issuance of a direction by this Court to the first Respondent/the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Tamil Nadu, Chennai to consider his representation dated 14.12.2005 and also to issue revised authorisation to the third Respondent through the second Respondent to draw Rs.2,92,057/- as per Account Slip dated 23.06.2005. 8. The Learned Standing Counsel for the first Respondent/the Principal Accountant General ( A & E), Tamil Nadu, Chennai submits that the Petitioner has retired voluntarily from service on 04.09.1998 and the proposal for closure of his G.P.F. Account was forwarded by the second Respondent/Director of Local Fund Audits, Kuralagam, Chennai-108 in letter No.K.Dis/31361/Pa.Vu.1/04 dated 19.09.2005 and because of belated sending of G.P.F. closure application viz., after a lapse of seven years from the date of voluntary retirement, the Account slips were continued to be issued till 20042005 by the Respondents/Office. In view of the voluntary retirement of the Petitioner on 04.09.1998 itself, certain excess credits were deducted and an authorisation of payment of G.P.F. balance amount of Rs.1,37,783/- was issued and the Petitioner is rightfully entitled to claim a sum of Rs.1,37,783/-. 9. The break of details accounting for the difference in the credit balance between the Account Slip figure and the actuals is detailed below:- 10. The Learned counsel for first Respondent brings it to the notice of this Court, VI Pay Commission Arrears to the credit a sum of Rs.7,045/- was separately authorised by the first Respondent in letter No. Funds 22/6/FW 252-2005/C5-238/2005-06/DC-42/1454,55 dated 25.10.2005, and payment of the same was not been litigated. 11. The authorisation for the payment of GPF balance was issued by the first Respondent on 28.10.2005 and that was returned by the Treasury Officer, Erode in February 2007 with non-payment certificate etc. 11. The authorisation for the payment of GPF balance was issued by the first Respondent on 28.10.2005 and that was returned by the Treasury Officer, Erode in February 2007 with non-payment certificate etc. and also a request was made for issuance of a fresh authorisation inasmuch as the earlier authorisation was expired. Later, a fresh authorisation in payment of GPF balance of Rs.1,37,783/- was issued to the Department and Treasury by the first Respondent Office on 08.03.2007. 12. At this juncture, it is relevant for this Court to make an useful reference to paragraphs 6 and 7 averments of the counter filed by the first Respondent/The Principal Accountant General( A & E), Tamil Nadu, Chennai-18 for better and fuller appreciation of the merits of the matter in a proper and real perspective which are as follows:- “Excess interest allowed “6.It is submitted that as regards interest, as per Explanation 7 under Rule 13 of Tamil Nadu GPF Rules, in case where a payment of the final withdrawal is made three months after it become payable, interest for the first 3 months will be paid at the normal rate and for the period beyond 3 months at the rate of 8 percent per annum. The sanction of the competent authority is necessary for the Accountant General to authorise payment of interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum. If the sanction for payment of interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum is not received from the competent authority the Accountant General shall in the first instance, issue an authorisation allowing normal interest on the accumulation in the fund up to the end of the third month of its becoming payable. 7. It is submitted that as per Government letter No.120076/Allowance/93-1 dated 21.12.93, the General Provident Fund final payment application shall be forwarded to Accountant General before 4 months of retirement (i.e.) during the last 4 months which subscription is stopped. In the case of the petitioner the application for closure has been forwarded by the Department after a lapse of 7 years from the date of retirement which has paved the way for excess credits being included in the GPF balance of the subscriber.” 13. In the case of the petitioner the application for closure has been forwarded by the Department after a lapse of 7 years from the date of retirement which has paved the way for excess credits being included in the GPF balance of the subscriber.” 13. The Learned Counsel for the first Respondent contends that the factum of voluntary retirement of the Petitioner was not known to the Authority of the first Respondent till an application/proposal for closure of his GPF Account was received by the Office on 15.09.2005 and in the absence of any proposal/application for closure of his GPF Account, the first Respondent was continuously sending the Account Slips till the year 2004-2005 with the details of opening balance, interest thereon and closing balance right from 1997-1998 onwards. Added further, neither the petitioner nor the second Respondent/Director of Local Fund Audits at Kuralagam, Chennai had communicated the factum of retirement of the Petitioner to the first Respondent's office till 2004-2005. 14. The Learned counsel for the First Respondent contends that when the proposal for closure of the Petitioner's GPF Account was received, a thorough scrutiny of the Accounts was undertaken by the Office of the first Respondent/the Principal Accountant General ( A & E), Tamil Nadu, Chennai-18 and the actual amount due as per the General Provident Fund (Tamil Nadu) Rules was authorised thereby the wrong credits were withdrawn and the admissible interest (upto 12/98) in terms of Rule 13 (Explanation 7) of the General Provident Fund (Tamil Nadu)Rules was allowed. 15. The final submission of the Learned Counsel for the first Respondent Office is that in Letter No. AG(A&E)/GPF 22/VI/62, dated 19.07.2006 (to the representation of the Petitioner dated 14.12.2005), it is informed that he is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.1,37,783/- and therefore nothing remains to be considered. 16. It cannot be gain said that in regard to the claim of interest as per the explanation 7 of Rule 13 of the General Provident Fund(Tamil Nadu)Rules, which are as follows:- “In case where a payment of the final withdrawal is made three months after it became payable, interest for the first three months will be paid at the normal rate and for the period beyond three months at the enhanced rate of 8 per cent per annum. The sanction of the competent authority is necessary for the Accountant-General to authorise payment of interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. The authorities competent to sanction payment of interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum should issue the sanctions immediately, whenever necessary, and pursue further action for fixing responsibility for the belated payment of the accumulations in the Fund and the payment of interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum consequently. If the sanction for payment interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum is not received from the competent authority, the Accountant-General shall in the first instance, issue an authorisation allowing the normal rate of interest on the accumulations in the Fund upto the end of the third month of its becoming payable. Subsequently after receiving the sanction order of the competent authority for the payment of interest at the enhanced rate, the Accountant-General shall issue an authorisation allowing interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum on the accumulation in the Fund remaining unpaid for more than three months of its becoming payable”. The General Provident Fund final payment application shall be forwarded to Accountant General before four months of retirement (i.e.) during the last four months which subscription is stopped. Failing which, the departmental officers should be held responsible.” 17. In case, where a payment of the final withdrawal is made three months after, it becomes payable, interest for the first three months will be paid at the normal rate and for the period except three months at the rate of 8% per annum. It cannot be lost sight of that the sanction of the competent authority is necessary for the Accountant General to authorise payment of interest at 8% per annum. Ordinarily, if the sanction for the payment of interest at 8% per annum is not received from the competent authority, the Accountant General shall in the first instance, issue an authorisation allowing normal interest on the accumulations in the fund till the end of third month of its becoming payable. 18. At the risk of repetition in regard to the pay commission arrears credit of Rs.7045/-the first Respondent office as per communication in reference Letter No. Funds 22/6/FW 252-2005/C5-238/2005-06/DC-42/1454,55 dated 25.10.2005 had authorised the said payment and that was not in controversy/dispute. 19. 18. At the risk of repetition in regard to the pay commission arrears credit of Rs.7045/-the first Respondent office as per communication in reference Letter No. Funds 22/6/FW 252-2005/C5-238/2005-06/DC-42/1454,55 dated 25.10.2005 had authorised the said payment and that was not in controversy/dispute. 19. Be that as it may, admittedly, the Petitioner has made a representation dated 14.12.2005 requesting for issuance of a revised authorisation. Since the authorisation dated 25.10.2005 is per se a wrong one, he has been furnished with a detailed reply by the first Respondent on 19.07.2006. Also that the first Respondent has clearly issued an authorisation to the Department and the Treasury on 08.03.2007 in regard to the rightful payment of GPF balance of Rs.1,37,783/-. When a detailed reply dated 19.07.2006 has been furnished by the first Respondent to the Petitioner, and also when in law he is only legitimately entitled to receive the GPF balance of Rs.1,37,783/- he cannot take a contra plea that as per Account Slip for the year 2004-2005, he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,92,057/- as shown as balance to his credit (including the Pay Commission Arrears credit of Rs.7045/- etc.). 20. Looking at from any angle on an overall assessment of the entire conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case in an integral fashion, this Court comes to an incapable conclusion that the Petitioner's representation dated 14.12.2005 is devoid of merits and consequently the Writ Petition fails. 21. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.