JUDGMENT This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by one Ram Gulam, a retired Government servant for recovery of interest for the period from 1st October 1996 to 31st October 2005 over the amount of general provident fund due and payable to him. The writ petitioner, a Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Additional Collector in the district of West Champaran, Bettiah came to be dismissed from service on 16th March 1996 on disciplinary grounds. Pursuant to his dismissal from service, he was entitled to receive the amount of provident fund standing to his credit in the provident fund account. The said amount however was not paid to the petitioner until 31st October 2005. The petitioner was paid the amount standing to his credit on 16th March 1996 and interest for six months from March 1996. The petitioner was not paid interest for the period from 1st October 1996 to 31st October 2005. Therefore, this Petition. The Petition came up for hearing before the learned single Judge on 11th February 2010. The learned single Judge noticed the judgments of this Court in the matters of Ram Pavitra Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. { 2003(1) PLJR 301 } and of State of Bihar & Anr. Vs. Kedar Nath Jha & Ors. { 2006(3) PLJR 473 }. According to the learned single Judge both the said judgments took divergent views. The learned single Judge, therefore, referred the matter to the larger Bench. Since the reference to the larger Bench, the matter came up before the Division Bench. The Division Bench under order dated 11th October 2010 noticed the aforesaid judgment in the matter of State of Bihar & Anr. Vs. Kedar Nath Jha & Ors. { 2006(3) PLJR 473 } and another Division Bench judgment in the matter of The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Ram Pavitra Singh { 2010 (3) PLJR 906 }. In view of the divergent views, the Division Bench referred the matter to the larger Bench. The present petition has, thus, landed before us. Learned advocate Mr. Sushil Kumar Ray has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that no sooner the petitioner was dismissed from service, it was the duty of the State Government to remit the amount of provident fund with interest up-to-date. The present petition has, thus, landed before us. Learned advocate Mr. Sushil Kumar Ray has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that no sooner the petitioner was dismissed from service, it was the duty of the State Government to remit the amount of provident fund with interest up-to-date. The State Government having failed in its duty, the petitioner is entitled to recover interest from the due date till the date of payment on 31st October 2005. Learned advocate Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi has appeared for the respondent-State Government. Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi has submitted that Rule 14 of the Bihar General Provident Fund Rules 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) envisages that on retirement or dismissal or removal from service, the government servant or in case of death of the government servant, his nominee or successor in interest shall make application for withdrawal of the amount of provident fund. Sub-rule (4) of the aforesaid Rule 14 enjoins the State Government to pay interest over the amount of provident fund due for six months from the date it becomes due for payment. He has submitted that reading the aforesaid Rule 14(4) of the Rules with the Government Circulars dated 6th May 1988 and 5th March 2001, it is clear that in case the application for withdrawal of the provident fund amount is not received within the said six moths, after expiry of six months from the due date for payment, the State Government is not responsible for payment of interest over such amount. He has submitted that if the government servant or his nominee or the successor in interest, as the case may be, applies for withdrawal of the amount of provident fund within the aforesaid period of six months and the State Government fails to make prompt payment, the liability of the State Government to pay interest continues until the payment is made. He has submitted that in the present case although the petitioner was dismissed from service as early as on 16th March 1996 he did not apply for withdrawal of the provident fund amount until 5th October 2005. On receipt of the application, it was promptly processed. The provident fund amount and the interest upto 30th September 1996 was paid to the petitioner on 31st October 2005. The State Government was not responsible for delay in payment of the provident fund amount. On receipt of the application, it was promptly processed. The provident fund amount and the interest upto 30th September 1996 was paid to the petitioner on 31st October 2005. The State Government was not responsible for delay in payment of the provident fund amount. The State Government is, therefore, not liable to pay interest claimed by the petitioner. A similar issue arose before a learned single Judge of this Court in the matter of Bidya Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. { 2001(1) PLJR 626 }. In the said case, petitioner, the widow of a government servant, approached this Court for recovery of the amount of the provident fund due to her late husband Bhagat Prasad, a Headmaster in the Government Middle School. The said Bhagat Prasad had taken voluntary retirement on 1st May 1993 and had died on 30th October 1997. The petition was contested on the ground that the application for withdrawal of the provident fund amount was not received from the concerned office. According to the respondent authorities, the deceased had not made application for withdrawal of the provident fund amount. The application filed by his widow, the writ petitioner, on 9th November 1999 was processed and the payment was made on 28th March 2000 during the pendency of the writ petition. The learned Judge held that a person cannot be deprived of statutory interest over the GPF amount which had been retained by the respondent authorities. It is the duty of the head of the office to ensure that the necessary formalities were completed and forwarded to the concerned authorities for release of the provident fund amount. Once again, the same issue arose before the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Kedar Nath Jha (supra) in respect of the outstanding recovery of the provident fund amount. The Bench directed to remit such amount and pay interest @ 5% per annum for last one year. We must note that in this matter, the claim was not only for the provident fund but various other retiral dues. In the aforesaid matters, although the Courts had allowed interest over the outstanding amount of provident fund, the Courts did not notice or discuss the statutory provisions or the law on the point. Then came the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Ram Pavitra Singh { 2010 (3) PLJR 906 }. In the aforesaid matters, although the Courts had allowed interest over the outstanding amount of provident fund, the Courts did not notice or discuss the statutory provisions or the law on the point. Then came the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Ram Pavitra Singh { 2010 (3) PLJR 906 }. In the said matter the Court, on facts found that the government servant Ram Pavitra Singh had made application for withdrawal of the provident fund amount within six months from the date the payment became due. The concerned authority did not process and forward the same to the Accountant General for due payment. Thus, the State authorities being negligent in processing the application, the Court directed the respondent authorities to pay statutory interest over the provident fund amount up-to-date. Although, the learned Judges did award statutory interest up-to-date, the Court also discussed the relevant rules and instructions issued by the State Government. The Court observed that the Court did not agree with the reasoning in the matter of Bidya Devi (supra). The learned Judges relied upon the above referred Rule 14(4) of the Rules and the Government Circulars dated 9th May 1988 and 5th March 2001. The Court observed that “the interest beyond a period of six months will not be paid only in such case where the application was filed after a period of six months. In this context from the reading of the circular dated 5.3.2001 it is quite explicit that if after receipt of the application for final withdrawal of G.P.F. the delay in payment is on account of administrative lapses on the part of the Drawing and Disbursing/sanctioning authority, the interest will be paid upto the date of payment and the amount of interest paid in excess of the period of six month will be recovered from the concerned erring officials”. In the aforesaid backdrop, we will consider the provisions contained in Rule 14 of the Rules. Rule 14 of the Rules deals with “Interest”. In the aforesaid backdrop, we will consider the provisions contained in Rule 14 of the Rules. Rule 14 of the Rules deals with “Interest”. The said Rule 14 relevant for this Petition reads as under:- “14.(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5) below, Government shall pay to the credit of the account of subscriber interest at such rate as may be determined for each year according to the method of calculation prescribed from time to time by the Provincial Government: Provided that if the rate of interest determined for a year is less than 4 per cent, all existing subscribers to the fund in the year preceding that for which the rate has, for the first time been fixed at less than 4 per cent shall be allowed interest at 4 per cent. (2) ----------------------------------------------------- (3) --------------------------------------------------- (4) In addition to any amount to be paid under rules 29, 30 or 31, interest thereon upto the end of the month preceding that in which the payment is made, or upto the end of the sixth month after the month in which such amount became payable, whichever of these periods be less shall be payable to the person to whom such amount is to be paid: Provided that where the Accounts Officer has intimated to that person (or his agent) a date on which he is prepared to make payment in cash, or has posted a cheque in payment to that person interest shall be payable only upto the end of the month preceding the date so intimated, or the date of posting the cheque, as the case may be”. Rules 29 to 34 of the Rules provides for “final withdrawal of accumulation in the fund”. Rule 29 of the Rules provides, inter alia, that the fund standing to the credit of a subscriber shall become payable to him when he quits the service. Rules 35 to 39 provide for procedure to be followed. The Rule also provides for the application to be made for withdrawal of the provident fund amount and the rules for processing such applications. In our opinion, the law is clear. The view expressed by this court in the matter of Bidya Devi (supra) is not sustainable. Rules 35 to 39 provide for procedure to be followed. The Rule also provides for the application to be made for withdrawal of the provident fund amount and the rules for processing such applications. In our opinion, the law is clear. The view expressed by this court in the matter of Bidya Devi (supra) is not sustainable. It is indeed the duty of the State Government to remit the amount of provident fund standing to the credit of a government servant on the date of his retirement or soon thereafter but not without a formal application. It is trite that whether any application is received or not, the State Government must remit the amount of provident fund to the government servant. Until the amount is remitted to the government servant, the State Government is under obligation to credit interest at the statutory rate. The said obligation extends to six months from the month in which the payment becomes due. After the expiry of the said period of six months, if the State Government has not received the application for withdrawal of the provident fund amount, the State Government is under no obligation to pay interest over the outstanding amount of the provident fund. However, if the State Government has received the application for withdrawal of the provident fund amount within the said six months, the State Government is obliged to pay interest over the amount of provident fund at statutory rate till the date the amount is paid. In our opinion, the best course of action is that the application for withdrawal of the amount of provident fund shall be received by the State Government, months before the government servant is due to retire from the service, so that the application is processed and the amount is remitted on the date the government servant retires from service. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner did not make application for withdrawal of the amount of the provident fund within six months from the date he was dismissed from service. Once the petitioner made application on 5th October 2005, it was immediately processed and the payment was made on 31st October 2005. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to interest over the amount of provident fund from 1st October 1996 till 31st October 2005 claimed by him. For the reasons aforesaid, petition is dismissed. Once the petitioner made application on 5th October 2005, it was immediately processed and the payment was made on 31st October 2005. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to interest over the amount of provident fund from 1st October 1996 till 31st October 2005 claimed by him. For the reasons aforesaid, petition is dismissed. The judgments in the matters of Bidya Devi (supra) and of Kedar Nath Jha (supra) do not lay down a correct law. The said judgments are overruled.