Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 201 (PAT)

Nirmal Kumar Mishra v. State Of Bihar

2000-02-04

AFTAB ALAM

body2000
Judgment 1. The matter relates to the payment of the petitioners G.P.F. even after 13 years since his retirement. A supplementary counter affidavit is filed today in which it is stated that a sum of Rs. 3,19,723 being the final payment of G.P.F. amount, along with statutory interest upto 31.1.2000 was paid to the petitioner. From the supplementary counter affidavit, however, it appears that a sum of Rs. 6,778/- still remained due. 2. Miss Kamlesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner is not fully satisfied with the payment of statutory interest and she strongly argued that it was a fit case in which apart from the statutory interest the petitioner should also be awarded some penal interest. 3. The facts of the case are brief and beyond the controversy. It is an admitted position that the petitioner retired on 31.1.1987 and was thus entitled to payment of Rs. G.P.F. on that date. According to the officials from the District Provident Office, at that time a sum of Rs. 79,000.00 was payable to the petitioner as his G.P.F. The payment was not made in time and it was only on 31.1.2000, i.e., exactly after 13 years that payment was made to the petitioner when the G.P.F. amount had accumulated to a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 and odd with the accrual of statutory interest @ 12.5%. 4. The explanations furnished for the delay in payment of the G.P.F. amount are hardly satisfactory and I find myself in agreement with Miss Jain that the case of the petitioner calls for a direction for payment of some penal interest as well. It is accordingly directed that additional interest @ 5.5%, compoundable annually, be paid to the petitioner on the original G.P.F. amount payable to him on the date of his retirement. The amount of additional interest must be paid to the petitioner within two months from today. The payment of the additional amount will be shared by the District Provident Fund Office and the Accountant Generals Office in the ratio of 75% and 25% respectively. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application stands disposed of.