JUDGMENT NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J. State is in this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.04.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1683 of 2005 (Shailendra Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Others) 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-State and learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, and with their consent this appeal is being disposed of at this state itself. 3. The controversy in the present case relates to the payment of interest in respect of the GPF Account of the State Government employees. The learned Single Judge held that, in view of the decision of the State Government, the writ petitioner having made deposit, he would be entitled to receive interest @ 12.5%, whereas, the State Government contends that the writ petitioner/respondent having defaulted in the deductions, he would be entitled to interest only at 10.5%. In our view, learned Single Judge is substantially correct, but certain clarifications are required. 4. It appears that w.e.f. 01.07.1985, a new scheme for payment of interest on the GPF Account was introduced by the State. This, inter alia, provided that, as against deduction of 10.5% from the salary of the employee for deposit in GPF Account, an employee was entitled to interest thereon @ 10.5%, henceforth, the interest payable would be 12.5%, but, in order to earn that interest on the GPF Account the employee had to get deductions at a higher rate as well, i.e., 12.5% of the salary. An option was given to the employee, who wanted to continue under old scheme, to intimate to the authority that deductions would continue at 10.5%, which would then earn interest only at 10.5%. 5. It appears that there was some confusion amongst both the State Treasuries from which payments and deductions were made as well as the employees though, we are of the view that there was, in fact, no confusion. What the new scheme provided was a default rate of 10.5% interest with a default deduction of 10.5% from the salary. It was only an exception, where an employee wanted deductions at a lesser amount of 10.5%, he had to give option, and in such a situation, he would be entitled to interest of 10.5% as against default of 10.5%. In view of confusion created, the State Government then came up with a resolution no. 7529 dated 29.11.1985. It was only an exception, where an employee wanted deductions at a lesser amount of 10.5%, he had to give option, and in such a situation, he would be entitled to interest of 10.5% as against default of 10.5%. In view of confusion created, the State Government then came up with a resolution no. 7529 dated 29.11.1985. It clearly stipulated that those persons, in respect of whom, deductions continued to be made at 10.5% from their salary, if they deposited the difference i.e. 2% of short-fall of deduction in one installment by the end of December, 1985, they would get the benefit of enhanced interest for the entire period. 6. Still there appears to be some confusion. This was further clarified by State Government resolution under Memo No. 1606 dated 27.10.1995, in paragraph-3 which reads as under: ^^3- ljdkj ds lkeus ,sls dbZ ekeys vk;s gSa fd ;fn dksfV ¼2½ ¼1½] vFkkZr ubZ ;kstuk] ds vUrxZr vkus okys fdlh va'knk;h ds fu/kkZfjr ekfld va'knku esa fdlh ,d ekg esa Hkh fu/kkZfjr va'knku dh jkf'k esa ,d :i;k dh Hkh deh gks tkrh gS rks ml va'knk;h dks mDr ekg ls gh mldh iwjh lsok vof/k rd 12-50 izfr'kr C;kt dh nj ls oafpr gks tkuk iM+rk gS vkSj mls ek= 10-50 izfr'kr dh nj ls gh C;kt izkIr gksrk gS] Hkys gh ml va'knk;h }kjk vkus okys eghuksa esa D;ksa u fu/kkZfjr jkf'k gh vius Hkfo"; fuf/k va'knku esa dVkbZ xbZ gks % blls va'knkrkvksa dks dbZ dfBukbZ;k¡ gks jgh gS vkSj mUgsa foÙkh; {kfr dk Hkh lkeuk djuk iM+ jgk gSA vr% mDr fLFkfr ij Hkyh&Hkk¡fr fopkj dj ljdkj us ;g fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd ;fn fdlh va'knk;h ds ekfld va'knku dh fu/kkZfjr U;wure jkf'k fdlh foÙkh; o"kZ ds ,d ;k ,d ls vf/kd ekgksa esa de tek gqbZ gks rks ml va'knk;h dks dsoy mlh foÙkh; o"kZ esa C;kt dh jkf'k 12-50 izfr'kr dh nj ls ns; u gksdj ek= 10-50 izfr'kr dh nj ls ns; gksxhA vxys foÙkh; o"kZ esa ;fn va'knk;h fu/kkZfjr U;wure va'knku nsuk izkjEHk dj nsrk gS vkSj mlus fiNys foÙkh; o"kZ esa fu/kkZfjr U;wure va'knku dh jkf'k ls tks jkf'k de tek dh Fkh] ;fn og mls] ek= 12-50 izfr'kr C;kt ds] vius va'knku esa tek dj nsrk gS] rks mls fu;ekuqdwy 12-50 izfr'kr dh nj ls lwn fn;k tk;sxkA ¼i= la[;k th0 ih0 ,Q0 01-698@90@1606 fo0 ¼v0½ fnukad 27-10-1995^^ 7. A plain reading of the aforesaid paragraph would show that there being some confusion whereby at times deductions were not made to the extent of 12.5%, then treating it to be a case of short deduction, future interest payments were reduced from 12.5% to 10.5%. To overcome this hardship and difficulty, State resolved that, in the month in which there was a short deduction, it is for that month alone he would get interest at the lower rate of 10.5% instead of default rate of 12.5%, but no sooner the deductions were in accordance with the scheme, the rate of interest of 12.5% would stand-restored. The same would be the position, if the difference was immediately deposited. 8. The net result of all these circulars was that w.e.f. 01.07.1985, the scheme changed. The default rate of interest in GPF Account became 12.5%, and the default rate of deduction was 12.5%. It could only be reduced, if the employee gave an option to lesser deduction @ 10.5%, as was earlier made, which would get the interest @ 10.5% instead of the default rate of 12.5%. The shortage of deduction was available only up to December, 1985. Thereafter, if there was any short deduction for that month, the interest entitlement would be 10.5%, but the moment deductions were of 12.5% of the salary, the interest would stand increased to default rate of 12.5%. Merely because an employee a year or two later, after the cut-off date of December, 1985, deposited the difference, he would not ipso facto, though entitled to the higher default rate of interest for the period of default, for that period, he would get the lower interest, but when deductions are restored at the higher level, he would get the higher interest. This is what the scheme is, in our view. 9. To that extent, the learned Single Judge was not correct in holding that once the writ petitioner had deposited the difference, then, right from beginning, he would be entitled to interest @ 12.5%, for that we have already indicated. This option was available only if the defaults were made good by December, 1985. 10. Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent, submits that the obligation to deduct was upon the Treasury, if they made a wrong deduction, the writ petitioner/respondent cannot suffer. This option was available only if the defaults were made good by December, 1985. 10. Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent, submits that the obligation to deduct was upon the Treasury, if they made a wrong deduction, the writ petitioner/respondent cannot suffer. The proposition may be correct, but is not applicable to the fact, inasmuch as, one important aspect is not made a part of the said proposition. Deductions are not made behind the back of an employee. It is with his full knowledge on month to month basis. The employee does not make a protest. He makes a protest only after more than two years, apparently, after realizing the consequences that with similar deductions, he would not be entitled to higher interest. The employee, thus, contributed to the default. 11. Thus, in fairness to learned counsel for the State, we have taken note of Circular No. 6991 dated 07.07.1997, which in our view, does not change the position. As we have indicated above, the net result would be that, for the months in which there was short deductions from the salary of the writ petitioner/respondent, he would be entitled to interest only at 10.5%, but the moment, the deductions are restored to 12.5%, he would be entitled to higher rate of interest at 12.5%, which is the default rate. It would, now, be for the Authorities to work out the correct interest which could be done within three months from today. 12. With this observation, this Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed.