Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 442 (PAT)

Mirza Sultan Haider v. State Of Bihar

2001-05-17

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2001
Judgment 1. In this writ petition prayer on behalf of the petitioner is to direct the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna for transfer of his General Provident Fund dues from 1958 to 1982 to the office of the District Provident Fund Officer, Bhagaipur and for payment of the entire provident fund dues with up-to-date statutory interest as well as penal interest and cost. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner initially joined the Agriculture Department, Bihar as Horticulture Inspector at Patna. Later he was promoted as, Assistant Seed Production Officer, Patna under the Potato Development Officer, Patna, Bihar. He was transferred to Bhagaipur from where he retired on 31.1.1990 while posted as Assistant Vegetable Extension Officer, Bhagaipur under the District Horticulture Officer, Bhagaipur. The petitioner duly applied for transfer of G.P.F. amount deposited in the office of Accountant General from 1958- 59 to 1982-83, the period when he was posted at Patna and account was maintained by the Accountant Generals office, and also for payment of the remaining entire G.P.F. amount deposited in his account till his retirement. It is stated that such applications were made by him in January 1991, February 1992, March 1993, April 1994, May 1995, June 1996, July 1997 and on 17.11.1998. A true copy of the last application has been annexed as Annexure-1. It is further stated that the District Provident Fund Officer, Bhagaipur also wrote several letters to the A.G., Bihar vide letter no, 1115 dated 3.7.1990, 2285 dated 13.11.1990, 1142 dated 18.4.1996, 3546 dated 7.10.1996 and 440 dated 26.2.1998. The Accountant General after nine long years sent his reply to the District Provident Fund Officer, Bhagaipur asking him to contact the District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur vide Annexure-3. From the said letter it appears that the balance transfer for the Account No. - A.G. 24070 of the petitioner up to 1981-82 was made on 28.10.1989 to the District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur through Director, Provident Fund, Bihar, Patna. It is alleged that the Accountant General, Bihar has acted in a most irresponsible manner in not releasing/transferring the provident fund amount to Bhagaipur where the petitioner was transferred in the year 1983 itself and retired from there on 31.1.1990. According to the petitioner, the Accountant General, Bihar ought not to have transferred the amount to Samastipur since the petitioner was never posted at Samastipur during his tenure of service in the Government. According to the petitioner, the Accountant General, Bihar ought not to have transferred the amount to Samastipur since the petitioner was never posted at Samastipur during his tenure of service in the Government. Due to such irresponsible action the petitioner has suffered irreparable loss, mental agony, so much so that the District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur also did not respond to several letters sent by the District Provident Fund Officer, Bhagalpur with reference to the said letter of A.G., Bihar. Petitioner also sent legal notice to A.G., Bihar requesting for transfer/payment of G.P.F. from 1959 to 1982 and made several trips to Patna to the office of A.G., Bihar, but having received no positive response filed the present writ petition. It is alleged that the petitioner has suffered monetory loss and inconvenience also. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna (Respondent no. 4), in which it is admitted that the office of Respondent no. 4 maintained the G.P.F. accounts of the employees of State of Bihar up to 1981-82 and thereafter in due consultation with C & A.G. of India was relieved of duty and responsibility of maintenance of G.P.F. Accounts of the employees of the State Government of the then Bihar with effect from 1.4.1986 by transferring the balance of accounts up to 1981-82 to newly created organisations of the Director Provident Fund/District Provident Fund Officer under the administrative control of the Government of Bihar vide Presidential Gazette notification no. G.S.R. 519 dated 7th March, 1986. The Joint Director, Accounts in the office of Comptroller Auditor of India, New Delhi sent telex message vide Annexure-C to the A.G., Bihar, stating therein "It is confirmed that posting of Provident fund accounts up to 1981-82 should be completed and balances transferred to State Government and rest of the accounts may be handed over to the Government." The Accountant General was required to intimate the balance up to 31.3.1981 {i.e. 1981-82) and account from 1.4.1982 to the date of retirement was to be maintained and accounts missing credits/debits were to be constructed by the D.P.F. as on collateral evidence i.e. details of credits and debits certified to be complete and correct by the Drawing and disbursing Officer (Treasury Officers), who draw/have drawn their pay and allowances from the treasury directly. It is further stated that the Accountant General did not issue any authority for final payment in respect of the subscribers who retired on or after 1.4.1986 and such payments were to be arranged by D.P.F.s office. According to the Accountant General, the balance received from him were to be adopted as on 31.3.1982 by the District Provident Fund Officer and in no case annual statement of balances issued by the Accountant General to the subscriber or similar record shall be taken into account or relied upon by the District Provident Fund Officer as a proof of balances to the credit of the subscribers. Provident Fund Directorate of Government of Bihar issued letter no. 29 dated 28th August, 1986 to all District Provident Fund Officers to follow the said decision and to act in accordance with the circular. It is stated that on receipt of the application dated 20th December, 2000 (Annexure- 5/A) from the petitioner, the office of the Respondent no. 4 after verification of G.P.F. account balances in ledger maintained in its office informed him vide letter dated 8.2.2001/14.3.2001 that balance up to 1981-82 under Account No. AG 24020 was transferred to District Provident Fund Office, Samastipur on 27.10.1989. The receipt of legal notice from the petitioner has been denied and with reference to letter dated 12.4.1999 issued from the office of Respondent no. 4 it is contended that the petitioner was well aware of the fact that the said B.T. was sent by the office to District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur on 28.10.1989 weii before his retirement on 31.1.1990. It is, thus, contended that Respondent no. 4 has taken all steps with promptitude to redress the grievance of the petitioner in general. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur (Respondent no. 3), in which it is stated that for the first time he came to know with regard to the pendency of this case on 26.3.2001. Immediately after receipt of the order of this Court, he inquired the matter and on enquiry it appeared that his office has not received the balance amount of provident fund up to the period 1981-82 from the office of Accountant General, Bihar, Patna, as stated in letter dated 12.4.1999 (Annexure-3) issued by the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. Immediately after receipt of the order of this Court, he inquired the matter and on enquiry it appeared that his office has not received the balance amount of provident fund up to the period 1981-82 from the office of Accountant General, Bihar, Patna, as stated in letter dated 12.4.1999 (Annexure-3) issued by the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. He has admitted about the receipt of legal notice on behalf of the petitioner and immediately after receipt of it his office vide Memo no. 474 dated 27.10.2000 informed the counsel of the petitioner that no such deduction balance sheet of G.P.F. of the petitioner was received in his office from the Accountant General. 5. A counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the District Provident Fund Officer, Bhagalpur (Respondent no. 2), in which it is admitted that after retirement of the petitioner Assistant Director of Agriculture (Horticulture), Bhagalpur vide this letter no. 218 dated 14.6.1990 forwarded the application of the petitioner for final withdrawal of G.P.F. along with deposit statement for the period 1982-83 to 1989-90 to his office. The balance transfer of the petitioner for the period prior to 1982-83 i.e. for the period up to 1981-82 was not received from the office of Accountant General, Bihar, Patna and as such, the Accounts Officer of the office of Accountant General vide his letter no. 1125 dated 3.7.1990 followed by reminders ho. 2283 dated 13.11.1990, 1142 dated 18.4.1996 and 3546 dated 7.10.1996 was requested to send the same to his office immediately. The Assistant Director, Agriculture (Horticulture), Bhagalpur also vide letter no. 3546 dated 7.10.1996 was requested to let his office know whether any advance from G.P.F. was taken by the subscriber in the past and whether 1/5th of the G.P.F. was drawn. But no reply was received from either of them. It is stated that he also requested the Deputy Director of Provident Fund, Bihar, vide letter no. 440 dated 26.2.1998 to send the entire balance transfer, but no reply was received by him. The District Horticulture Officer Bhagalpur vide letter no. 147 dated 22.5.1999 communicated that the balance transfer of the petitioner has been sent to the District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur vide letter dated 25.10.1999 and immediately thereafter he sent letters no. 440 dated 26.2.1998 to send the entire balance transfer, but no reply was received by him. The District Horticulture Officer Bhagalpur vide letter no. 147 dated 22.5.1999 communicated that the balance transfer of the petitioner has been sent to the District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur vide letter dated 25.10.1999 and immediately thereafter he sent letters no. 687 dated 14.6.1999, 1123 dated 22.7.1999, 2709 dated 22.12.1999 and 410 dated 9.2.2000 to the office of District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur to send the balance transfer of the petitioner immediately. He also requested the Accountant General, Bihar vide letter no. 1210 dated 24.3.2000 to send a duplicate copy of the balance transfer and a copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the Deputy Director, Provident Fund for necessary action. He has further stated that in the meantime his office received the Government instruction contained in letter no. 1486 dated 24.3.2001 issued by the Joint Commissioner, Accounts Administration Finance (Directorate of Provident Fund) Department, Bihar intimating therein that if balance transfer up to 1981-82 has not been received from the Accountant General, Bihar and if papers are available from 1982-83 and onwards, payment may be made for the period i.e. 1982-83 and onwards. Immediately after receipt of the said instruction he issued authority slip no. 197410 dated 31.3.2001 for a sum of Rs.83, 120/- on the basis of deduction amount furnished by the petitioner for the period 1982- 83 to 1989-90 with up-to date interest upon the same up to 31st March, 2001. It is stated that as soon as the balance transfer for the period up to 1981-82 is received the authority for payment of the remaining amount shall be issued forthwith. In the supplementary counter affidavit, it is stated that he personally contacted the Senior Accounts Officer, A.G. Bihar, Patna and on personal pursuasion the deponents office could receive the balance transfer of the petitioner vide Senior Accounts Officer letter no. 3310 dated 22.3.2001. It is further stated that as per communication the office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna had sent the balance transfer of the petitioner to the District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur vide B.T. No. Nil dated 27.10.1989, however, the office of the Accountant General in the above communication made it clear that the balance transfer of the petitioner for the period 1981-82 stood as balance of Rs. 702+1422 i.e. a total of Rs. 702+1422 i.e. a total of Rs. 2124/-only and asked to take further action treating the said amount as base point. The A.G. also sent a copy of the letter to the District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur with a direction to send back the B.T.earlier sent to him after cancelling the same. It is stated that immediately on receipt of the B.T. the amount payable to the petitioner was calculated and authority slip no. 197430 authorising the payment of Rs. 13, 964/- was issued and sent to the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, the Assistant Director of Horticulture, Bhagalpur for immediate payment to the petitioner vide letter no. 1207 dated 11.4.2001. 6. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, in which issuance of sanction order/authority for payment of provident fund is admitted. It is further stated that interest has not been calculated or indicated in the affidavit. It is further reiterated that the petitioner was not paid the G.P.F. amount from 1982-83 and onwards due to the fact that the previous amount of G.P.F. was not transferred and as such, he was put to great mental harassment and agony. The petitioner has, thus, claimed payment of penal interest besides statutory interest because of delay and harassment caused by the office of Accountant General by wrongly stating that the petitioners G.P.F. amount up to the year 1981-82 has been transferred to Samastipur. 7. Mrs. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strongly contended that the present case is an example of undue harassment and malafide act on the part of the office of the Accountant General, which has kept the petitioner deprived of his entire provident fund dues for over ten years, although application was filed by him in due time. 8. Learned Standing Counsel No. VIII appearing for the State and its official has contended that the petitioner retired from Bhagalpur and the District Provident Fund Officer, Bhagalpur has taken all necessary steps for expeditious payment of the provident fund amount, but for want of balance transfer from the office of the Accountant General, the same could not be finalised. However, in view of the Government instruction dated 24.3.2001 (Annexure-D) to release the payment for the period 1982-83 and onwards even if balance transfer has not been received the Respondent no. However, in view of the Government instruction dated 24.3.2001 (Annexure-D) to release the payment for the period 1982-83 and onwards even if balance transfer has not been received the Respondent no. 2 issued authority immediately on 31.3.2001 with respect to the said period and later issued authority even for the period prior to 1982-83 soon after balance transfer was received from the office of Accountant General. As such, according to him, there is no lapses on the part of Respondent no. 2 and the delay if any was caused because of negligence on the part of the office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. With respect to inaction of the District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur he submitted that it cannot be denied that there has been some lapses on the part of the District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur, although he was not the authority concerned at all for payment of the provident fund amount of the petitioner, as admittedly the petitioner was never posted at Samastipur. It is true that the District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur should have responded to the letter of the District Provident Fund Officer, Bhagalpur written in the year 1999, but in view of the fact that he had hardly any role to play in payment of the G.P.F. dues of the petitioner, this Court shall, consider the lapses if any on his part in responding sympathetically. 9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Accountant General has submitted that the balance transfer had already been sent as per the Government of Indias instruction long back in the year 1989 itself i.e. much before the retirement of the petitioner to the concerned authorities of the State Government and as such, it was the responsibility of the said authorities to see that the same reaches to the appropriate concerned authority and thus, the office of the Accountant General cannot be held responsible for the delay. 10. This Court is unable to accept the submission of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Accountant General. Bare perusal of the aforementioned facts show that initially the Accountant Generals office sent letter to the District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur showing Nil as against the balance transfer of the petitioner, which later vide letter dated 22.3.2001 (Annexure-G to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent no. 2) was corrected and balance of Rs. Bare perusal of the aforementioned facts show that initially the Accountant Generals office sent letter to the District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur showing Nil as against the balance transfer of the petitioner, which later vide letter dated 22.3.2001 (Annexure-G to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent no. 2) was corrected and balance of Rs. 2124/- was shown as balance transfer, in pursuance of which Respondent no. 2 issued authority contained in Annexure-H. From the facts aforementioned, this Court finds it to be a clear case of undue harassment caused to the petitioner by the office of Accountant General. Public authorities cannot ignore the letter/request written by an employee. It is their duty to respond with all promptness. But in the present case, this Court finds that despite several letters written by the petitioner as well as District Provident Fund Officer, Bhagalpur, office of the Accountant General has acted most callously without realising their duty and agony of a retired Government servant. Keeping in view the decrease in value of money in the last ten years, this Court is of the view that mere statutory interest on the principal amount is not enough to compensate the loss which the petitioner has suffered on account of gross negligence on the part of the office of the Accountant General. 11. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be paid consolidated amount of Rs. 10,000/- by way of penal interest and cost by the Accountant General (Respondent no. 4) which shall be recovered from the person in his office found responsible for the delay. 12. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Respondent no. 4 is directed to pay the aforementioned consolidated amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. Respondent no. 4 shall fix the responsibility for causing delay of almost ten years in his office and recover the said consolidated amount from the person found responsible.