Judgment 1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.2319 of 2004. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.16517 of 2007. 2. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Director in the Department of Local Fund Audit. As per his Service Register, his date of birth was recorded as 19.04.1942. Hence, he was to retire on 30.04.2000. 3. The petitioner filed O.A.No.2834 of 2000 seeking to alter his date of birth as 18.03.1944 instead of 19.04.1942. The Tribunal allowed the said Original Application on 28.04.2000. However, the department relieved him from service on 30.04.2000 itself taking his date of birth as 19.04.1942. 4. Thereafter, the Department filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9381 of 2000. This Court, by an order dated 12.03.2002 allowed the said writ petition. When the petitioner was relieved from service on 30.04.2000, the Department did not send the proposals for GPF and on the other hand, the same was settled belatedly in May 2002 i.e., after two years. Hence, the petitioner sought for interest for the belated payment by submitting a representation. Since the same was rejected, the petitioner has filed this Original Application. 5. A reply affidavit was filed by the third respondent stating that the General Provident Fund (Tamil Nadu) Rules provides for payment of special interest on belated final settlement. The third respondent has averred that the office of the third respondent was not responsible for belated payment of GPG and the third respondent may not be directed to pay interest. According to the third respondent, no sanction of GPF was forwarded to the office of the third respondent in the year 2000 and it was forwarded only in 2002. As soon as it was forwarded, the third respondent authorised the sanction of GPF. 6. I do not find fault with the averments made by the third respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 alone are responsible for the belated sanction of GPF. The department relieved the petitioner on 30.04.2000. There is no reason for keeping the GPF amount for two years and sanctioning the same only during May 2002. Since the department is solely responsible for the belated sanction of GPF, particularly, when they relieved the petitioner on 30.04.2000, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to interest from the first and second respondent. 7. There is no reason for keeping the GPF amount for two years and sanctioning the same only during May 2002. Since the department is solely responsible for the belated sanction of GPF, particularly, when they relieved the petitioner on 30.04.2000, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to interest from the first and second respondent. 7. For all the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed; the writ petition stands allowed. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay interest for the belated payment of GPF as provided under the Rules, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.