Judgment :- 1. The prayer in this writ petition is seeking for a mandamus directing the second respondent to pay the gratuity amount to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as 'Secondary Grade Teacher' on 17.10.1967 and got retired on 30.09.2006. Though, the second respondent allowed the petitioner to retire, as per his proceedings, dated 29.09.2006, his entire gratuity amount has not been paid so far, without any reason. 3. It is further stated by the petitioner that similarly situated persons were granted the gratuity amount soon after their retirement. The petitioner further understand that the second respondent is withholding the gratuity amount only because of the reason that no audit was conducted during the tenure of service of the petitioner and only after conducting the audit, the gratuity amount will be disbursed to the petitioner. 4. The third respondent filed a counter affidavit and stated that the Director of Pension, Chennai-6 has no power either to sanction or authorise the pension or to disburse any kind of pensionary benefits to the retirees. It is only the Accountant General (A& E), Chennai alone is competent authority to authorise pension and other pensionary benefits based on the proposals received from the Department concerned. 5. There is no counter affidavit filed by any other respondents. 6. The only grievance of the petitioner is that though, he was permitted to retire by the second respondent, through his proceedings, dated 29.09.2006, his gratuity amount was not paid till this date, only for the reason that there was no audit conducted during the tenure of his service. 7. It appears that similarly situated persons were given their respective retirement benefits, whereas the petitioner has not been given the same. At any event, the reason for withholding the gratuity amount to say that there was no audit conducted during the tenure of the petitioner service, cannot be sustained for such a long time. If there was no audit conducted, it is for the respondents to get it conducted then and there and disburse the retirement benefits to the retirees immediately after their retirement. Not conducting an audit during the relevant period was not the fault on the part of the petitioner. Stating such reason to deny the retirement benefits to the petitioner, in my considered view, cannot be sustained. Not conducting an audit during the relevant period was not the fault on the part of the petitioner. Stating such reason to deny the retirement benefits to the petitioner, in my considered view, cannot be sustained. Therefore, the second respondent is directed to send a new proposal seeking for all the retirement benefits to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and consequently, the concerned authority should disburse the retirement benefits to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.