JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court for quashing the letter under No.F.2(11)/87/AUD-DIR/ESTT/2006/1911-13 dated 12.05.2016, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whereby the respondents had communicated the petitioner as under: “Since Shri Barua has not completed 15 years of regular service (date of joining-02.01.2008), therefore, he is not entitled to be allowed non-refundable withdrawal from GPF Account in connection with renovation/reconstruction of house, at this stage. However, any correspondence in this regard, if necessary, may please be made with the Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Teliamura Division, Khowai District since the relevant service records are lying with that office.” 3. The petitioner has further urged to this court for a direction on the respondents, the respondent No.4 in particular, for sanctioning and releasing the non-refundable withdrawal from his GPF Account in terms of his requisition for renovation/reconstruction of his house. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as the Assistant Accounts Officer/Assistant Audit Officer in terms of the memorandum dated 10.01.2005, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It would be gathered from the memorandum dated 10.01.2006, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the petitioner had joined on 28.12.2005 even though in the impugned order, it has been written as 02.01.2008. Be that as it may, whatever date is accepted, on the basis of the stand taken by the respondents as reflected in Para-12 of their counter affidavit that the petitioner has not completed the required period of service, he cannot get non-refundable withdrawal from the GPF Account. 4. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that by the notification under No.20(11)-P & P.W/86-(GPF) dated 23.10.1990 published as S.O. No.3006 in the Gazette of India dated 17.11.1990 in the General Provident Fund (CS) Rule 15(B), the requirement of any specified period for a subscriber to get the non-refundable withdrawal from the GPF Account from his credit has been deleted. Mr. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the un-amended rule, where in Rule 15(1B), which provided that ‘after the completion of fifteen years of service (including broken period of services, if any) of a subscriber or within ten years before the date of his retirement on superannuation, whichever is earlier, from the amount of subscription and interest therein standing to the credit of the subscriber in the fund for one or more purposes including reconstruction or making additions or alterations to a house or a flat already owned or acquired by a subscriber and for renovating, additions or alterations or upkeep of the ancestral house or a place other than the place of duty or to a house built with the assistance of loan from Government at a place other than the place of duty.” The bone of contention is that the said amendment as carried out in the General Provident Fund (CS) Rules has not been adopted by the State Government depriving the subscribers like the petitioner from the said advantage. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel having referred to the memorandum under No.F.12(2)-Fin(G)/74 dated 18.04.1977 has submitted that after this adoption, the State Government has not adopted any further amendment as carried out in the General Provident Fund (CS) Rules. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has therefore, categorically submitted that since the un-amended rule does not permit such non-refundable withdrawal, by the impugned order, the respondents have regretted the prayer of the petitioner for non-refundable withdrawal from his GPF account for renovation/construction of his house. 5. This is really surprising that the amendment that has been carried out by the Central Government has not been adopted when the State Government is following the General Provident Fund (CS) Rules in its stock and barrel. It is expected from the State Government that to take due exercise for adoption of the amendment within a reasonable time inasmuch as the object of the said amendment as carried out in 1990 is very clear. It is to achieve that no hardship to a subscriber of the GPF is caused for placing the imitational restriction. But this court has come across the provisions of Rule 37 of the said Rules which provides as under: “37. Relaxation of the provisions of the rules in individual cases. It is to achieve that no hardship to a subscriber of the GPF is caused for placing the imitational restriction. But this court has come across the provisions of Rule 37 of the said Rules which provides as under: “37. Relaxation of the provisions of the rules in individual cases. When the President is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules causes or is likely to cause undue hardship to a subscriber, he may, notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, deal with the case of such subscriber in such manner as may appear to him to be just and equitable.” 6. In view of the said Rule 37, the petitioner is permitted to file a representation within a period of 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order to the Secretary to the Finance Department, Government of Tripura for relaxing the requirement of the specific period provided under Rule 15(1B) of the said rule for withdrawal from the credit as maintained in the GPF Account of the petitioner showing the difficulties he has been facing for not having carried out the renovation/reconstruction of his own house. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura, who represents the respondent No.1 in this writ petition, shall judiciously consider such prayer for relaxation and pass the appropriate order keeping in view of the object of the amendment that has been carried out by the Government of India in the year 1990. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura having received the representation from the petitioner shall consider the said representation within one month from the date of receipt. 7. Having held so, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.