Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1154 (PAT)

Banshidhar Paswan v. State of Bihar

2014-11-20

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER Facts of the present case are disturbing. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to pay GPF amount which his father was entitled to receive upon his retirement from the post of Head Clerk under Anchal Office, Tarapur, Munger on 1.10.1991, along with interest at the rate of 13% per annum. The petitioner’s father died on 8.8.2002. This is not in dispute that the petitioner’s father retired on 1.10.1991 but his General Provident Fund amount could not be paid to him during his life time up to 8.8.2002. 2. Pursuant to an order of this Court for filing counter affidavit, the District Provident Fund Officer, Munger filed an affidavit admitting that the petitioner’s father retired on 30.9.1991 and the Block Development Officer, Tarapur had sent his application for final withdrawal of Provident Fund Amount vide letter No. 295 dated 27.7.1994 but without enclosing deduction statements. It has been stated in the said counter affidavit that the office of the District Provident Fund Officer sent a couple of reminder to the Circle Officer, Tarapur and reference has been made to one of such communication dated 17.3.2011, i.e. 17 years after the application for final withdrawal was sent on 27.7.1994. Thereafter, as per the said counter affidavit, the District Provident Fund Officer issued an authority slip for payment of GPF amount of Rs. 1,00,707/- with interest up to March, 2011. A calculation chart was also prepared accordingly by the District Provident Fund Officer and on the basis of documents made available by the Circle Officer, payment was authorized. On 8.4.2011 the District Provident Fund Officer sent a letter No. 689 dated 8.4.2011 to Circle Officer, Tarapur to make available rest deduction statements. 3. When the matter was taken up on 22.9.2014, taking serious note of the fact that the entire Provident Fund amount was not paid, the Court directed personal appearance of the District Provident Fund Officer. Pursuant to the said order the District Provident Fund Officer appeared personally in Court on 8.10.2014. The Court directed the District Provident Fund Officer, Munger to ensure that all General Provident Fund dues were cleared to the petitioner. 4. Pursuant to the said order the District Provident Fund Officer appeared personally in Court on 8.10.2014. The Court directed the District Provident Fund Officer, Munger to ensure that all General Provident Fund dues were cleared to the petitioner. 4. Without going into the further details as regards proceeding of the present writ application, this is to be noted that the District Provident Fund Officer, Munger filed a supplementary counter affidavit making following statements in paragraphs 5 and 6 :— “5. That after that the office of the deponent recalculated and issued two authority slips of Rs. 31,629 and Rs. 1,13,734/- with up to date statutory interest upto 10/2014 vide letter no. MU/2014/FP/1025 dated 18.10.2014 and letter no. MU/2014/FP/1048 dated 3.11.2014. 6. That on the basis of the deduction statements made available by the concerning all Drawing & Disbursing Officers full payment has been made authorized to the petitioner. Accept (sic)August 1973 to December 197 due to non availability of salary rtegister as per information given by the SDO, Khagaria vide letter No. 1888 dated 28.10.2014 ( Annexure-F series).” 5. From the statements made in paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the supplementary counter affidavit as quoted above, it would appear that only after the Court took serious note of non payment of admissible dues to the petitioner, whose father retired in 1991, further amounts were authorized against General Provident Fund with statutory interest up to October, 2014. In paragraph 7 of the supplementary counter affidavit, the District Provident Fund Officer made the following statement:— “7. That the interest of GAP period i.e. 04/1992 to 06/1994 is not admissible according to the Government circular vide letter no. 3373 dated 06.08.1988.” 6. Mr. Partha Sarthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents State of Bihar referring to the statements made in paragraph 7 of the supplementary counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioner was not entitled for interest upon General Provident Fund amount after expiry of period of six months from the date of retirement of the employee till the date it was forwarded by the Circle Officer, Tarapur to the office of District Provident Fund Officer, Munger. 7. General Provident Fund amount payable to an employee after his retirement is his own money which is deducted from his salary for being deposited in the General Provident Fund. Such amount cannot even be adjusted against any other dues payable to an employee. 7. General Provident Fund amount payable to an employee after his retirement is his own money which is deducted from his salary for being deposited in the General Provident Fund. Such amount cannot even be adjusted against any other dues payable to an employee. The State may be right in its stand while denying the petitioner’s interest upon General Provident Fund on the amount from April, 1992 to June, 1994 in terms of its own circular/decisions governing withdrawal of General Provident Fund amount. At the same time there cannot be any explanation by the State Respondents for withholding the amount for 23 years. Actual possession of money earned by a Government employee in the fag end of his life is very important and denial by the State Authority to make payment of an employee’s own money, in the facts and circumstance of the case is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. From letter dated 28.10.2014 written by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khagaria to the District Provident Fund Officer, Munger brought on record by the District Provident Fund Officer, Munger in his supplementary counter affidavit, it appears that even till date the deductions for the financial years 1973-74 and 1974-75 have not been taken into account for clearing the Provident Fund amount. Non-payment of General Provident Fund amount must have caused great agony to the petitioner’s father and the petitioner also. 8. I am therefore, of the opinion that exemplary cost is required to be imposed upon the State Respondents to be recovered from the persons responsible for non payment of General Provident Fund amount within a reasonable time. I accordingly, dispose of the writ application with a direction to the District Provident Fund Officer, Munger to reconcile the statement of General Provident Fund account of petitioner’s father for the period August, 1973 to February, 1974 and March, 1974 to December, 1974 and ensure that the payment along with up to date statutory interest is paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I impose a cost of Rs. 1 lac to be paid by the State of Bihar to the petitioner within the aforesaid period of three months. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I impose a cost of Rs. 1 lac to be paid by the State of Bihar to the petitioner within the aforesaid period of three months. I also direct the Chief Secretary, Bihar to cause an enquiry into the lapses leading to non release of Provident Fund amount to the petitioner’s father within the reasonable time and thereafter fix responsibility upon such employees It will be incumbent upon the Chief Secretary, Bihar to ensure that the cost paid to the petitioner in terms of the order of the Court is recovered from the persons responsible for lapses leading to non payment of General Provident Fund amount to the petitioner. 9. This application is accordingly, allowed. ?