JUDGMENT : YASHWANT VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming payment of interest on what the petitioner describes to be an unreasonable delay of 6-8 months in the release of consequential retiral dues, GPF and gratuity amount. 3. The petitioner admittedly retired from the service of the respondents on 31 August 2015. From the short counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is evident that 90% of the GPF was released in May 2016 pursuant to an order dated 26 December 2015. It is further pointed out that in the GPF account, the name of the petitioner was recorded as Daya Nidhi Yadav whereas the correct name of the petitioner was Daya Nidhi Singh Yadav. The correction in the name was ultimately carried out pursuant to the application made by the petitioner in this respect on 03 May 2016. 4. From the above it is apparent that although a formal order had been passed in December 2015 itself, the same could not be disbursed on account of discrepancy in the name.? Similarly the Court notes that Group Insurance and Leave Encashment was released in October and August 2016 respectively. The Gratuity was also released in favour of the petitioner in February 2016. The Court finds no inordinate or deliberate delay in the consideration, computation of the retiral benefits and the release thereof after the retirement of the petitioner. 5. Consequently, no ground exists for imposing a burden of interest on the respondents. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.