JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner's husband Prabhu Ram was working as Assistant Commandant in 19th Battalion, Border Security Force, Jodhpur. He was a member of General Provident Fund Account. He retired from the Government service on March 20, 1978, after attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, Prabhu Ram moved an application on April 4, 1985 for the payment of G.P.F. amount. This application remained unattended and he again moved an application on May 5, 1985 reminding the respondents to make payment of G.P.F. amount to him. This application/reminder also was not processed and considered by the respondent and, therefore, he again reminded the authorities on March 4, 1986 for making him the payment of G.P.F. amount. All these applications/reminders remained unattended by the respondents and the payment of G.P.F. amount was not made to the petitioner's husband Prabhu Ram. In the meanwhile, petitioner's husband died on September 3, 1989. After the death of her husband, the petitioner also moved an application on January 2, 1990, for the grant of G.P.F. amount. This application was processed by the respondents and ultimately the G.P.F. amount payable to her husband was paid to the petitioner on June 25, 1991. The petitioner, by this writ petition, has prayed that the respondents may be directed to make payment of interest @ 18% per annum since the date the G.P.F. amount became due to her husband till it was paid to her. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was the duty of the respondents to have supplied a copy of the Application Form to the petitioner's husband one year in advance so that he could have moved the application for the grant of G.P.F. amount in the prescribed application form. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was the duty of the respondents to have supplied a copy of the Application Form to the petitioner's husband one year in advance so that he could have moved the application for the grant of G.P.F. amount in the prescribed application form. Neither this; application form was supplied to him nor was the amount of G.P.F. paid to him and when an application was moved for the grant of G.P.F. amount, which was not in the prescribed application-form, the same remained unattended by the respondents and he was not paid the G.P.F. amount and as the G.P.F. amount was not paid to the petitioner's husband which became due to him on March 20, 1978 - the date on which he retired after attaining the age of superannuation-the petitioner is, therefore, entitled for interest on the G.P.F. amount since March 20, 1978 to June 25, 1991 when the G.P.F. amount was paid to her. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, is that Prabhu Ram retired from service on March 20, 1978. No application in the prescribed form was made by him to the respondents till January 2, 1990 and as soon as the application in the prescribed application-form was made, the case of the petitioner was processed and within 11/2 years, the payment of G.P.F. amount was made to her. So far as the applications dated April 4, 1985, May 15, 1985 and March 4, 1986 are concerned, it is contended that they were not addressed to the proper person and were not in the prescribed form and, therefore, they could not be attended. He, therefore, prayed that there is no delay on the part of the respondents in considering the application for the grant of G.P.F. amount and it was only on account of latches and delay on the part of the petitioner's husband that the G.P.F. amount could not be paid to him. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance over Rule 32 of the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960, and prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed. 3. I have considered the submission by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance over Rule 32 of the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960, and prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed. 3. I have considered the submission by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Rule 34 of the Rules, 1960 deals with the manner of payment of G.P.F. amount in the fund, and provides that when the amount standing to the credit of a subscriber in the fund becomes payable, it shall be duty of the Accounts Officer to make payment on receipt of a written application in this behalf as provided in Sub-rule (3). Sub-rule (3) of Rule 34 provides that in order to enable a subscriber to submit an application for withdrawal of the amount in the Fund, the Head of Office shall send to every subscriber necessary forms either one year in advance of the date on which the subscriber attains the age of superannuation or before the date of his anticipated retirement, if earlier, with instructions that they should be returned to him duly completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the forms by the subscriber. The subscriber shall submit the application to the Accounts Officer through the Head of Office or Department for payment of the amount in the Fund. Though the Rules provide that the application for the grant of G.P.F. amount has to be made on a prescribed application form, but the Rules also cast a duty on the Head of the Office to send the application form for withdrawal of the amount in the fund a year in advance so that the subscriber may make application on this application form. Admittedly, in the present case, no such application form was supplied to Prabhu Ram - the husband of the petitioner - and when an application was moved on April 4, 1985 and reminders were given on May 15, 1985 and March 4,1986 those applications/reminders remained unattended and the petitioner's husband was never advised to make application in the prescribed form. Admittedly, in the present case, no such application form was supplied to Prabhu Ram - the husband of the petitioner - and when an application was moved on April 4, 1985 and reminders were given on May 15, 1985 and March 4,1986 those applications/reminders remained unattended and the petitioner's husband was never advised to make application in the prescribed form. As per Rule 34 of the Rules, 1960 it was the duty of the Head of the Office to inform the petitioner's husband an year in advance, when the subscriber attains the age of superannuation, and to send the proper application form for the withdrawal of the amount, but the application-form was not sent to the petitioner's husband. If such an application-form would have been sent to him then the petitioner's husband would have made the application in the prescribed form. Even at the time when the applications were moved on plain papers, if his applications for the grant of G.P.F. amount could have been considered then he could have moved the application in the prescribed application form also. It was not on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner's husband that he could not get the G.P.F. amount in time. There were continuous requests by the petitioner's husband that he was entitled for this G.P.F. amount on the date when he retired after attaining the age of superannuation but this amount was kept by the respondents and was not paid to the petitioner's husband. Though it was the duty of the respondents to make payment of the G.P.F amount but since the petitioner's husband did not make any effort for the payment of this amount till April 4, 1985 when he moved an application for the grant of G.P.F. amount, in my view, therefore, he is not entitled for interest for the period March 20, 1978 till April 4, 1985 but definitely he is entitled for interest on the G.P.F. amount after this dale, which was not paid to the petitioner's husband for no fault on his part. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the G.P.F amount since April 4, 1985 to June 21. 1991 - the date on which the G.P.F, amount was paid to her. 5. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the G.P.F amount since April 4, 1985 to June 21. 1991 - the date on which the G.P.F, amount was paid to her. 5. In the result, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed and the respondents are directed to make payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the G.P.F. amount which remained with the respondents since April 4, 1985 to June 25, 1991. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. *******