Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1327 (PAT)

Ram Pavitra Singh v. State Of Bihar

2002-11-29

R.M.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, the grievances of the petitioner are twofold, firstly because he has not been paid interest on difference in the pay scale during the period 1-1-1971 to 31-3-1973 and secondly that the G.P.F. amount has also not been paid although he retired from the service as Teacher, Primary School, Jaunpur under Pandarak Anchal in Patna district on 31-3-1989. 2. Earlier on the request of the respondents this matters was adjourned after awarding a cost of Rs. 250.00 to enable the respondents to produce the necessary payment. Despite that the respondent authority has not produced the payment of the amount of interest for the said period. 3. The District Provident Fund Officer, Patna (respondent No. 4) has filed a counter-affidavit to which he has annexed a copy of the authorisation as Annexure-A showing authorsisation for payment of provident fund amount of Rs. 30,644.00 with statutory interest given till September, 1989 only and not up to the date of issuance of authorisation. The D.S.E. on the basis of the said authorisation produced a Bank draft of the said amount. The District Provident Fund Officer in the counter-affidavit has stated that the District Superintendent of Education, Patna (respondent No. 3) made available the relevant mandatory papers like statement of deduction and the application for final withdrawal of G.P.F. in prescribed proforma vide his letter No. 3815 dated 14-11-2002 and on that basis the entire calculation was done and authorisation was issued. It is further stated that from the said authorisation dated 14-11-2002 it would appear that the statutory interest on the entire G.P.F. amount was given up to September, 1989 i.e. for six months from the date of retirement because as per Finance Departments Circular dated 6-5-1988, the petitioner had not filed his application for final withdrawal of G.P.F. in prescribed format within six months after retirement. According to the District Provident Fund Officer, the notification of the Fiance Department and its clarification by the Directorate of Provident Fund, vide letter No. 1197 dated 5-3-2001, specifically provide that the statutory interest on G.P.F. for the delayed period in filing of the application for final withdrawal by the employees after six months after retirement till the date of filing of such application shall not be payable. In this regard he has annexed the copy of the Circular of the Finance Department as Annexure B and the clarification dated 5-3-2001 as Annexure B/2. 4. It is, thus, submitted by the learned Counsel or the State that the petitioner is not entitled for statutory interest up to the date of payment of his G.P.F. amount. 5. I am unable to accept the said submission of the learned Counsel for the State. This Court has in number of cases held that it is the responsibility of the sanctioning authority to get the necessary formalities completed for payment of the retiral dues, which obviously includes provident fund. In the case of non-gazetted Government servant, as per the Government decision, filing of forma! application was dispensed with in order to simplify the procedure for grant of pensionary dues and the responsibility was fixed upon the Head of the office and upon the Head of the Department in the case of Gazetted Government servant to get the necessary formalities completed sufficiently in advance so that a Government servant gets his entire payment of retiral dues on the date of retirement. 6. Despite the Government decision, this Court while hearing retirement benefits has found that it is very rare that this is being followed by any authority in the State and it is only after writ petitions are filed and directions are issued by the High Court that the authorities start taking action for the payment of the retiral dues which has resulted in piling up of the pendency of the writ petitions in this Court unnecessarily 7. This Court in the case relating to claim of provident fund in the case of Bidya Devi v State of Bihar, reported in 2001 (1) PLJR 626 , has held that it is the responsibility of the Head of the Department to get the necessary formalities completed and forward it to the concerned authority for release of the G.P.F. amount. It has further been held that there cannot be any justification to deny the statutory interest up to the date of the payment of the provident fund when the amount of provident fund was retained by the State. 8. It has further been held that there cannot be any justification to deny the statutory interest up to the date of the payment of the provident fund when the amount of provident fund was retained by the State. 8. Learned Counsel for the State, however, submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of Bidya Devi V/s. State of Bihar (supra) was with respect to the widow of the deceased employee and not of the Government servant himself who retired from service. 9. I fail to appreciate the said submission of the learned Counsel for the State. The notification (Annexure B), upon which reliance was sought to be placed, deals with all three types of cases, namely, retired Government servant or Government servant after reliquishing his post claim provident fund or in the case of death of a Government servant. Thus, I do not find any justification for making distinction between he aforementioned three types of cases. 10. In the case of Mohan Lal Chaturvedi V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., (C.W.J.C. No. 9601 of 2002) today this Court has rejected such plea of non-filing of application for denying statutory interest up to the date of payment. It has been held that such plea is not tenable and a person cannot be deprived of the statutory interest for the period during which G. P. F. amount was retained by the State authorities. It is not the case of the respondents that the concerned authority has taken all necessary steps as per the provision contained in Bihar Pension Rules for payment of the retiral dues well in advance by getting the formalities completed by him. This. Court has held that it is the duty of the respondents to collect the deduction statements from various places as the authorities are the custodian of the record as well as the service book and they are expected to be fully aware of various postings and deduction made for the G.P.F. account. 11. Usually the deduction statements are not supplied by the State authorities to the Government servants and in the present case also, it is not the case of the State authorities that the petitioner was supplied with the deduction statement. 11. Usually the deduction statements are not supplied by the State authorities to the Government servants and in the present case also, it is not the case of the State authorities that the petitioner was supplied with the deduction statement. It is also not the case of the respondents that the calculations were made and the Bank draft or cheque were prepared in the name of the petitioner for payment of his provident fund dues on the date of retirement and that he did not receive it. Thus, in my opinion, there cannot be any justification to deny the statutory interest up to the date of payment of provident fund dues. 12. Finance Department Circulars, contained in Annexure B and B/2 are, thus, held to be bad in so far as they provide for denial of statutory interest for the period after expiry of six months of the retirement and till the date of filing of the application. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled for up-to-date statutory interest on provident fund amount and also a cost of Rs. 2,000.00 (two thousand) to be paid by the District Provident Fund Officer from his own pocket as despite law being settled and indulgence granted to him in the present case he has not bothered to come with the authorisation for the same. 14. The writ application is, accordingly allowed and the District Provident Fund Officer, Patna is directed to issue authorisation for the remaining statutory interest on provident fund amount and pay the aforementioned amount of cost to the petitioner within one week of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. 15. Further, this Court directs the District Superintendent of Education, Patna, who had also given undertaking, to ensure that the payment of interest over the amount of difference of pay scale during the period 1-1-1971 to 31-3-1973 is paid by Tuesday next (3-12-2002) posistively. 16. In case of non-compliance of any part of this order, the petitioner will be at liberty of file two pages affidavit for taking appropriate action against the District Superintendent of Education and the District Provident Fund Officer.