Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 263 (JK)

Baljeet Kour v. State Bank Of India

2002-08-16

S.K.GUPTA

body2002
The case of the petitioner as unfolded in the petition, is that her husband, S. Bhupinder Singh,who was working as Field officer in the State Bank of India, died in harness in the year 1980. The petitioner was given all service benefits and also provided appointment in the subordinate cadre of the State Bank of India on compassionate basis.The petitioner also claimed, to be entitled to the Provident Fund to which her late husband subscribed as well as contributed to as an employee of the State Bank of India. It was also submitted that a communication was received by her on 31.3.1995 from the State Bank of India intimating that an amount of Rs. 23, 422.95 was contributed by her husband towards the Provident Fund and an equal amount has also been contributed by the Bank towards the Provident Fund which after calculating the interest accrued thereon had accumulated to Rs. 46,845.90 as on 31st March, 1995. The bank, however, released only an amount of Rs. 10,030/- through Cheque 908852 dated 27.4.2000 on account of Provident Fund. The balance amount of Provident Fund remained unpaid, which penultimately necessitated the petitioner to approach this Court through the currency of this petition. The stand of the respondents in their counter is that since the petitioner has accepted an amount of Rs. 10,030/- on account of Provident Fund without protest, it amounts to full and final settlement and thus, cannot be reagitated in this petition. It is further submitted by the respondents that since the petitioner did not apply for the grant of Provident Fund, the same could not be disbursed. The respondents on its own intimated to the petitioner regarding her entitlement to the Provident Fund contributed by her late husband without getting any formal application from her. It was also denied that the husband of the petitioner contributed Rs. 23,442.95 towards the Provident Fund and the communication intimating about the amount subscribed and contributed by the late husband of the petitioner as an employee of the bank, was due to computer error. Rule 33 of the State Bank of India Employees Provident Fund Rules provides that interest on the amount ceases on the death of the employee and the petitioner thus, is not entitled to any interest on the amount of the Provident Fund. Rule 33 of the State Bank of India Employees Provident Fund Rules provides that interest on the amount ceases on the death of the employee and the petitioner thus, is not entitled to any interest on the amount of the Provident Fund. It is not disputed that the husband of the petitioner namely, Bhupinder Singh died in service as employee of the State Bank of India in the year 1980. The communication with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner for the release of the Provident Fund subscribed and contributed by her deceased husband as an employee of the bank, was addressed in the year 1995 and a cheque for an amount of Rs. 10,030/- as Provident Fund, was received by the petitioner in the year 2000. This manifestly shows that the petitioner was deprived of the amount of Provident Fund subscribed and contributed by her deceased husband as an employee of the bank. It is also on record, as per Annexure-A, that the bank intimated to the petitioner in the year 1995 that an amount of the Provident Fund contributed by her deceased husband till 31.3.1995 was Rs. 23,422.95 and so subscribed by the bank, which comes to Rs. 46,845.90. Provident Fund refund papers of the petitioners deceased husband however, were moved in the office of respondents on 16.12.1999 after a lapse of 19 years, as is borne out from correspondance dated 22.9.2000 from Assistant General Manager (PPQ) to the Deputy General Manager (Annexure-E). The contention raised by Mr. Gagan Basotra, respondents Advocate that in view of Rule-33 of the State Bank of India Employees Provident Fund Rules, interest on all monies standing in the books of bank to the credit of an employee shall cease on the day he leaves the service of the bank or the day on which he dies, has no application in this case. The case of the petitioner reflecte in the petition, pertains to the delayed payment of Provident Fund contributed and subscribed by her late husband as an employee of the bank. The bank was well aware of the death of the deceased, which took place in the year 1980 and also the entitlement of the petitioner to the Provident Fund contributed by him as bank employee. The Provident Fund refund papers were processed after 19 years. The bank was well aware of the death of the deceased, which took place in the year 1980 and also the entitlement of the petitioner to the Provident Fund contributed by him as bank employee. The Provident Fund refund papers were processed after 19 years. Delay is attributable to the bank in not putting up the terminal papers of the deceased in time. This clearly entitles the petitioner to claim interest on the balance amount of Provident Fund. The respondents have released Provident Fund of Rs. 10,030/- in favour of the petitioner.The petitioner is held entitled to the balance amount of Provident Fund as per the Employees Provident Fund Statement of Account for the year ending 31st March, 1995 provided to the petitioner by the State Bank of India, alongwith interest at the bank rate. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled for the release of the balance amount of Provident Fund as per Employees Provident Fund Statement of Account for the year ending 31st March, 1995 alongwith interest at the bank rate accrued thereon, payable by the respondents. It is accordingly directed that release of balance amount of the Provident Fund i.e. Rs. 46,845.90 less by Rs. 10,030/- (already received) = Rs. 36,815.90, shall be sanctioned by the respondents within two months from the date certified copy of this order is made available by the petitioner to the respondents.