Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1197 (JHR)

Ram Ji Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2016-08-02

H.C.MISHRA

body2016
ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation as also the learned counsel for the Punjab National Bank. 2. The petitioner was earlier appointed as Forest Guard in year 1987 in the erstwhile Bihar State Forest Development Corporation. After the creation of the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner has become an employee of the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation. The petitioner had applied for advance of Provident Fund in the year 2004, when he had already become an employee of the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation. The amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and a cheque was also issued on 18.2.2005, by the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation. However, as the account of the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation had been seized, the said cheque could not be honored. 3. The petitioner, thereafter, filed this writ application for getting the sanctioned amount of Provident Fund and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation that during the pendency of this writ application, a fresh cheque of Rs. 1,25,000/-has been issued in favour of the petitioner, which the petitioner has also encashed. This fact is also admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the said amount was sanctioned to the petitioner in the year 2005 itself, whereas the payment has been made to the petitioner in the year 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims for the statutory interest on the said amount. 5. Learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation submits that the earlier cheque was issued by the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation which could not be honored, due to the fact that the account was seized and accordingly, the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation shall not be liable to make payment of any interest on the said amount. 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation cannot be appreciated. The fact remains that during the pendency of this writ application, the petitioner has been issued the cheque of Rs.1,25,000/-in the year 2016 by the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation for his amount of provident fund which was sanctioned to the petitioner in the year 2005 itself, for no fault on part of the petitioner. 7. The fact remains that during the pendency of this writ application, the petitioner has been issued the cheque of Rs.1,25,000/-in the year 2016 by the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation for his amount of provident fund which was sanctioned to the petitioner in the year 2005 itself, for no fault on part of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the respondent Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation is directed to make the payment of the statutory interest on the said amount to the petitioner for this belated payment, for which, the petitioner cannot be held to be responsible in any manner. The respondent Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation is directed to release the amount of statutory interest in favour of the petitioner positively within the period of six weeks from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. 8. If the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation feels that the statutory interest is payable by the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation shall be at the liberty to settle its claim with the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, but the payment to the petitioner should be released by the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation, under which, the petitioner is presently working. 9. This writ application accordingly, stands disposed of with the directions as above.