Judgment :- Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to pay the balance amount of Government contribution of Provident Fund to the first Petitioner i.e. Rs.26,888.48; to the second Petitioner i.e. Rs.12,873.53; to the third Petitioner Rs.13,239.65; to the fourth Petitioner i.e. Rs.16,9178.85. The Writ Petitioners seek Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to pay the balance amount of Government contribution of Provident Fund to the Petitioners. 2. Background facts:- The Petitioners, employees of the first Respondent college retired on attaining the age of supperannuation. On their retirement, the first Respondent settled their provident fund dues by paying the management and employee contribution. The first Respondent college followed a scheme called "Swastik Provident Fund Scheme", as per which, towards provident fund both the employee and the first Respondent college would contribute 6 ¼% of their pay (both pay and allowances) and 3% will be contributed by the Government. The Petitioners allege that on their retirement they were paid only the contribution made by them and the first Respondent college and the 3% contribution of the Government was due. Regarding this, the Petitioners have sent representations on 17.03.92, 09.12.91, 03.05.96 and 03.05.99. The second Respondent has sent reply on 24.12.1996 stating that steps have been taken to release the Government's contribution. The Petitioners have filed W.P.No.6709 of 1998 for directing the Government to pay its 3% contribution. The Government issued G O.2D.No.124 Higher Education (C1) 27.09.1999. the Court has accepted and recommended to sanction Rs.78,955/- towards government’s contribution to 48 eligible employees. In view of the said Governmetn Order, W.P.NO.6709 of 1998 was disposed off. Denying the averments made by the Petitioners, the first Respondent has filed counter affidavit contending that when the W.P.No.6709 of 1998 was pending, the Government has passed G.O.Ms.No.124 Higher Education (C1) dated 27.09.1999 and the Petitioners were paid the amount due to them. The first Respondent has also contended that the local fund Auditors have calculated the actual amount after verifying the records maintained by the first Respondent and the correcting of it was confirmed by the Chief Internal Auditor. 3. The question that falls for consideration is, based on G.O.Ms. No.90 Education, dated 16.01.1963, whether the Petitioners are entitled to claim 1/3rd of the amount standing to the subscribers credit at the time of quitting? 4. 3. The question that falls for consideration is, based on G.O.Ms. No.90 Education, dated 16.01.1963, whether the Petitioners are entitled to claim 1/3rd of the amount standing to the subscribers credit at the time of quitting? 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has contended that as per the Government Order, the Government's contribution will be at 1/3rd of the amount standing at the subscribers credit at the time of quitting. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the Petitioners have been paid basing upon G.O.Ms.No.124 Education Department dated 27.09.1999 and the balance amount is payable. 5. The contention of the Petitioners is that as per G.O.Ms.NO.124 Higher Education (C1) dated 27.09.1999, they were paid meagre sum as Government's contribution, and they are put to great loss. The Government's sanctioned amount and the Petitioners' claim is as follows:- 6. The main contention of the Petitioners is that Government's 3% contribution is to be calculated at 1/3rd of the total amount standing in the credit of the individual at the time of quitting the provident fund scheme. It's further contention is that for the mistakes committing by the local Fund Auditors, the Petitioners were made to suffer. 7. The learned counsel for the first Respondent has submitted that the Government contribution is only 1/3rd on 6% of the basic pay and not 1/3rd of the amount standing at the subscribers credit at the time of quitting. Drawing the attention of the Court to the calculation sheet furnished in the typed set of papers, the learned counsel for the first Respondent has submitted that the amount calculated at 1/3rd of the amount on 6% of the basic pay and Government's contribution has already been paid to the Petitioners and recording the same, earlier W.P.No.6709 of 1998 was also disposed of. 8. Interpretation of the G.O.Ms. No.90 Education, dated 16.01.1963, would resolve the contentious points urged by the Petitioners. G.O.Ms. No.90 Education, dated 16.01.1963 reads as follows:- "The Government accept the proposal of the Director of Technical Education to permit the teaching and non-teaching staff to follow the "Swastik House Employees Provident Fund Scheme" according to which the subscriber has to be contribute 6 ¼ % of his pay (both pay and allowance) to the above scheme while the management will pay an equal amount to the fund. The above permission is subject to the condition that the contribution of the Government will be at the rate of one third of the amount standing at the subscribers credit at the time of quitting the fund calculated at 6% on his basic pay only as per Rule 4(b) of the Teachers' Provident Fund Rules with effect from 1st June, 1961 the date of introduction of above scheme in Private Polytechnics". 9. By a careful reading of the above Government Order, it is clear that the contribution of the Government will be at 1/3rd of the amount standing at the subscribers credit at the time of quitting the fund calculated at 6% on his basic pay as per Rule 4(b) of the Teachers' Provident Fund Rules. The Government Order does not stipulate that the contribution of the Government would be at the rate of 1/3rd of the entire amount standing at the subscribers credit. In the calculation statement of Provident Fund particulars furnished by the Petitioners, the Government contribution is calculated at 1/3rd of the total amount standing at the subscribers credit at the time of quitting the entire Provident Fund. For instance, one of the Petitioners D.Rajapalan, has the Government share of Rs.23.442.85 calculating as under:- "Employee's contribution at credit as on 31.08.1990, the date of quitting the P.F. At 6 ¼ % as basic is .. Rs.48,839.27 Employee's contribution at 6% of basic calculated as per T.P.F. Rules is .. Rs.46,885.70 Management contribution at 3% of basic calculated as per T.P.F. Rules is .. Rs.23,442,85 Total of Employee's contribution with interest + Management's contribution with interest at credit at the time of quitting the P.F. Is .. Rs.70,328.55 The Government share of P.F. Contribution at 1/3 of the total amount at credit at the time of quitting the P.F. As per T.P.F. Rules 4 B is .. Rs.23,442.85" 10. From the details showing the Government contribution of Provident Fund furnished by the first Respondent, it is seen that the total basic pay of D.Rajapalan is Rs.3,26,725/- 6% of the basic pay is Rs.19,603/- Government contribution is Rs.6,534/-, which has already been paid to the Petitioner D.Rajapalan. Thus 1/3rd of 6% basic pay as stipulated under the Government Order has already been paid to all the Petitioners. The calculation given by the Petitioners noted earlier is not in accordance with the Government Order. 11. Thus 1/3rd of 6% basic pay as stipulated under the Government Order has already been paid to all the Petitioners. The calculation given by the Petitioners noted earlier is not in accordance with the Government Order. 11. n fact, earlier, the Petitioners have filed the W.P.NO.6709 of 1998 praying for Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to pay Government contribution of 3% with interest to the Provident Fund. At the time when the Writ Petition came up for hearing, the Government Order in G.O.2D.No.124 Higher Education (C1) dated 27.09.1999 was issued by the Government sanctioning the amount applied for the first Respondent institution and recording the same, the writ petition was disposed of. The above said amount of 1/3rd of the 6% of basic pay was disbursed after the disposal of the W.P.No.6709 of 1998. Having received that amount, it is not open to the Petitioners to claim 1/3rd of the total amount standing at the subscribers credit at the time of quitting the fund. 12. In this regard, the Government has also sent a letter to the second Respondent stating that the amount has been paid as per G.O.Ms.No.90, Education, dated 16.01.1963 and there is no necessity for recalculating the Provident Fund amount payable to the retired 49 employees. The letter of Government in e/f/vz;/4776/c2-200-1 ehs; 25/06/2001 reads thus:- 13. The Petitioners had already been paid the Provident Fund amount in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.90, Education dated 16.01.1963. The Petitioners' claim of further amount that they are entitled to 1/3rd of the entire amount standing at their credit at the time of quitting the amount is not sustainable. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.