Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 380 (HP)

Dhani Ram v. State of H. P.

2006-11-30

B.S.CHAUHAN, NARINDER THAKUR

body2006
JUDGMENT B.S. Chauhan, Member (A) 1. The applicant has preferred this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the relief of payment of interest on delayed payment of General Provident Fund amount with the prayer to issue direction for the same to the Respondents. 2. In brief the case of the applicant as set out in the original application is that the applicant was working as principal in GSSS Chauntra and retired from service on 31.1.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. As per the statement of General Provident Fund amount closing balance of Rs. 8,72,228/- was due for payment to the applicant on the day of his retirement as per annexure A-l, the payment of General Provident Fund was delayed to the applicant as the same was released to him by Respondent No. 5 after more than 11 months and total amount of Rs. 9,00,232/- was disbursed to the applicant on 6.1.2004 including the interest on the closing balance. Aggrieved by this the applicant has preferred the present original application seeking the relief of payment of interest for delay of more than 11 months in the payment of General Provident Fund amount to the applicant. 3. Reply was filed by the Respondents No. 1 to 3 as well as by Respondents No. 4 and 5, the claim of the applicant has been disputed by Respondents No. 1 to 3 on the plea that there was no intentional delay in making payment of General Provident Fund amount and the dues of the applicant have been released after observing the necessary official procedure and formalities after sending the case to the Accountant General in accordance with rules for sanction. It has been further submitted in the reply that an amount of Rs. 9,00,232/- was paid to the applicant after the receipt of sanction from the office of Accountant General. The amount was thereafter released to the applicant without any further delay. Respondents No. 4 and 5 have disputed the claim of applicant for payment of interest beyond 6 months being not admissible under the Rules. It has been further stated that the case of the applicant was received from the Respondent department of the State Government on 29.9.2003 after retirement of the applicant on 31.1.2003. Respondents No. 4 and 5 have disputed the claim of applicant for payment of interest beyond 6 months being not admissible under the Rules. It has been further stated that the case of the applicant was received from the Respondent department of the State Government on 29.9.2003 after retirement of the applicant on 31.1.2003. As per the General Provident Fund Rules the subscriber should apply for final release of General Provident Fund in Part-I within 12 months before his retirement and Part-II should be furnished immediately after superannuation. But in the present case the application for final payment was not sent to the Accountant General well in time as prescribed under the Rules, due to this the final payment authority of Rs. 9,00,232/- was issued on 12.12.2003 after allowing interest upto 6 months from the date of retirement i.e. upto August, 2003 as admissible under the General Provident Fund Rules. As per the reply the applicant is not entitled for interest from September, 2003 onwards as there was no delay on the part of replying Respondents. The applicant had also represented to the Accountant General in this regard and he was accordingly informed that the interest as payable has been paid to him in accordance with Rules and he was not entitled for any interest from. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the applicant and Learned Additional Advocate General for Respondents/State and Shri Lokinder Thakur, Advocate for Respondents No. 4 and 5 and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is entitled for the interest on the delayed payment of General Provident Fund as the same was received by him after a gap of more than 11 months. In support of his contention he referred to the latest position of Rule 34 of General Provident Fund Rules in which there is no need for the subscriber to make a written application for releasing the final payment of General Provident Fund after superannuation. In support of his contention he referred to amendment made in Rule 34 of General Provident Fund Rules, which is re-produced as under: The words on receipt of a written application in this behalf deleted vide G.I., Dept. of Pen. & P.W. Notification No.20 (W/94-P & P.W.,(E) dated the 15th November, 1996, published as S.O. No. 3228 in the Gazette of India, dated the 23rd November, 1996. of Pen. & P.W. Notification No.20 (W/94-P & P.W.,(E) dated the 15th November, 1996, published as S.O. No. 3228 in the Gazette of India, dated the 23rd November, 1996. In view of this amendment the learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently pleaded that the condition of making a final application by the applicant has been dispensed with. In Addition to above amendment in the General Provident Fund Rules the learned Counsel for the applicant also cited the following case law: 1989 (4) SLR 572 V. Mahalingam Iyer v. The Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement) Tamil Nadu, Madras and Ors. 1999 (3) SCC 438 Dr. Uma Agrawal v. State of U.P. and Anr. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General argued that there was no delay on the part of the Respondent/state as the applicant applied for final withdrawal of his General Provident Fund during September, 2003 and immediately on receipt of his application his case was forwarded to the Accountant General for release of General Provident Fund amount alongwith admissible interest as applicable as per the Rules. Sanction was conveyed during the month of December, 2003 and payment was released on 6.1.2004. The learned Counsel for Respondents No. 4 and 5 pleaded that his case was received on 29.9.2003 and thereafter it was processed and final payment was authorised for Rs. 9,00,232/- on 12.12.2003 allowing interest upto 6 months from February, 2003 to August, 2003 as admissible under the General Provident Fund Rules. He pleaded further that applicant was not entitled to be paid interest from 1.9.2004 to 5.1.2004. 7. The short controversy in this case relates to the interest on the delayed payment of General Provident Fund amount. The main contention of the applicant is that as per the latest amendment to Rule 34 of General Provident Fund Rules dated 15.11.1996 there is no requirement of making written application for release of General Provident Fund after superannuation. He relied on the case law in which the Apex Court has held that in case there is uncalled for delay in the payment of General Provident Fund and other retirement benefits and other retirement benefits amount after superannuation, the concerned employee would be entitled to payment of interest. This has been held in the case law cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant as mentioned above. 8. This has been held in the case law cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant as mentioned above. 8. It is clear from the perusal of Rule 34 of General Provident Fund Rules as per amendment carried out that there is no requirement of written application for release of General Provident Fund amount and the amount payable to an employee on the retirement is to be processed by the employer at their own level. It is a matter of record that the applicant has been paid interest for a period of 6 months from January, 2003 to August, 2003 as admissible under the Rules. But no interest was paid to him beyond that date till the payment of amount was actually paid to him on 6.1.2004. The contention of the Respondents that the applicant had not applied till September, 2003 for release of final payment of General Provident Fund is not tenable in view of the amendment in Rule 34 of General Provident Fund Rules as referred to earlier by which the condition of making an application by the retiree employee has been dispensed with. Keeping in view the latest amendment in the General Provident Fund Rules and the case law cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant, he is entitled for payment of interest from 1.9.2003 to 5.1.2004 @ 9% p.a on account of delay in the payment of general provident fund to him. It is further ordered that the amount so payable to the applicant shall be processed and paid to him within a period of 3 months form the date of passing this order. The original application is disposed of in terms of above orders with no order as to costs.