JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. These appeals arise out of common judgment dated 28.08.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions by which writ petitions preferred by the appellants were dismissed. Since common questions of law and fact arise for determination in these appeals, therefore, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The appellants are admittedly retired government servants who were deprived of their claim of payment of general provident fund along with interest. Being aggrieved, the appellants approached this Court by filing writ petitions in which the writ of mandamus was sought commanding the respondents to release the amount of general provident fund as well as interest from the date of release of the amount of the general provident fund in full. The appellant No.1 in LPASW No.127/2010 superannuated on 31.12.2004 as Chief Accounts Officer from PHE Department. Admittedly, the general provident fund authority issued general provident fund Form No.30 in favour of the appellant No.1 on 20.06.2007 and calculated interest amount to Rs.52,738/- for the period from 01.07.2005 to 31.05.2007. However, the amount due to the appellant No.1 was not paid to the appellant No.1. The appellant No.2 is the legal heir of the deceased-original petitioner, Smt. Vimla Gupta who superannuated on 30.06.2002 and GPF form No.30 was issued to her on 27.12.2006 but the interest was released only up to 31.12.2002 and was quantified at Rs.1,56,075/- for a period from 01.01.2003 to 30.11.2006. The appellant No.3 retired on 31.01.2004 and the general provident fund authority issued form No.30 in his favour on 04.09.2006. An amount of Rs.60,752/- plus interest for a period from 01.04.2006 to 31.08.2006 was quantified an amount due to the appellant No.3. The appellant No.4 retired in January, 1992. Though he was paid the total payment of general provident fund amount to the tune of Rs.13,734/- in Feb.2007 and April 2007, yet the amount determined by the respondents is not in consonance with the provisions of the law. Form No.30 was issued in the favour of appellant no.4 on 24.02.2007. The appellant No.4 retired in January, 1992. Though he was paid the total payment of general provident fund amount to the tune of Rs.13,734/- in Feb.2007 and April 2007, yet the amount determined by the respondents is not in consonance with the provisions of the law. Form No.30 was issued in the favour of appellant no.4 on 24.02.2007. The appellant No.5 attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2003 and got an extension of two years and served the university till December, 2005 and thereafter applied for withdrawal of the general provident fund and an amount of Rs.3,00,560/- was computed as amount due to the appellant No.5 which includes the general provident fund subscription for the months of January and February, 2004. 3. In LPASW No.37/2010, the appellant retired as Superintending Engineer on 31.08.2002. The amount due to him was quantified to the tune of Rs.2,52,648/- by the respondents. It is the case of the appellant that he is entitled to interest accrued on the General Provident Fund release in favour of the appellant in view of Rule 16 of the GPF Rules read with Rule 7 of the Rules. 4. In LPASW No.143/2010, the appellant superannuated from the post of Deputy Director on 31.08.2001. The amount due to the aforesaid appellant was quantified at Rs.4,01,476/- plus interest at the rate of 12 per cent as prevalent on the date of superannuation. However, the appellant was deprived of the interest on the general provident fund. In the aforesaid factual background, the appellants approached the learned Single Judge by filing the writ petitions claiming the reliefs as stated supra. The learned Single Judge by a common judgment dated 28.08.2009 dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the appellants inter alia on the ground that SRO 254 dated 2nd of September, 2008 is prospective in nature and since the appellants had made claim for release of GPF amount after a period of six months and therefore they are not entitled to any interest. 5. Learned senior counsel for the appellants at the outset submitted that the issue involved in these appeals is no longer res integra as the same is covered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir and others vs. Sudershan Kumar Khajuria, 2015 (2) JKJ [HC] 772. 5. Learned senior counsel for the appellants at the outset submitted that the issue involved in these appeals is no longer res integra as the same is covered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir and others vs. Sudershan Kumar Khajuria, 2015 (2) JKJ [HC] 772. Learned Senior Counsel has also taken us through the Rules as well as Jammu and Kashmir General Provident Fund Manual as well as the Compendium and the Financial Code. It is also submitted that the respondents did not comply with Rule 20 and therefore they are liable to pay interest. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge It is further submitted that an employee can claim interest on the retrial dues by placing reliance on fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and retiral benefits are not in the nature of a bounty. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S K Deo v. State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44 . 6. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submitted that the appellants have submitted an application for withdrawal of the general provident fund after an inordinate delay. However, there claims have been processed by the respondents in quite promptitude. It is further submitted that since the amount in the general provident fund fetches a higher rate of interest. Therefore, the appellants deliberately did not make an application for withdrawal of the amount of general provident fund and for inaction on their part; they cannot be permitted to take any advantage. It is also argued that the judgment passed by the learned single judge is well reasoned judgment and does not call for any interference by this Court in this intra court appeal. In support of his submissions, learned government advocate has referred to a Communication dated 23.02.2006 sent by Additional Secretary to the Government, Finance Department to the Director, J and K Funds Organization, Jammu and Office Memorandum dated 03.03.2006 which pertains to transfer of unclaimed general provident fund to deposits. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant statutory provisions. Rule 7 of the General Provident Fund Rules, 1977 reads as under: “7. Compound interest at 5½ per cent annum will be allowed in the case of such subscribers to the fund as joined it before 1st Baisakh, 1983 and 3 ½ per cent per annum to those who joined the Fund thereafter. The Government, however, reserves the right of reducing the rate of interest at any time, for officers who became subscribers to the Fund on or after 1st Baisakh, 1983. The reduction from 4 per cent to 3 ½ per cent will come into force from Baisakh 2000. Note 1.- Before the amount at an officer’s credit in the Fund is finally paid under rules his account shall be credited with interest up to the end of the month preceding that in which the payment is made, or up to the end of the sixth month after the end of the month in which he quit the service or died, whichever of these periods is less. Rule 20 of the aforesaid Rules reads as under: “20. Unclaimed deposits,- Sums remaining unclaimed for a period exceeding 6 months should be transferred to deposits at the end of each year, and be dealt with under the ordinary rules relating to ‘deposits’. Thus from conjoint reading of Rule 7, note (I) read with Rule 20 of the Rules, it is evident that if the amount remains in the employees general provident fund, up to the end of six months, the same has to be transferred to deposits at the end of each year and be dealt with under the ordinary rules relating to deposits. 8. Note 1 appended to Rule 7 was amended vide Notification namely SRO 313 dated 08.06.1978 which reads as under: “Note 1.- Before the amount at an Officer’s credit in the Fund is finally paid under rules, his account shall be credited with interest up to the end of the month preceding that in which the payment is made. However, Rule 20 of the Rules was amended by a Notification dated 02.09.2008 and the figure ‘six months’ in Rule 20 was substituted by the word and figure ‘two years’. 9. However, Rule 20 of the Rules was amended by a Notification dated 02.09.2008 and the figure ‘six months’ in Rule 20 was substituted by the word and figure ‘two years’. 9. Note 1 of clause 6.06 appended to Jammu and Kashmir General Provident Fund Manual reads as under: “Note:-1. Before the amount at an officer’s credit in the fund is finally paid under rules, his account shall be credited with interest up to the end of the month preceding that in which the payment is made (SRO-313 dated: 08-06-1978).” From Communication dated 12.05.2000 sent by Director (Codes), Finance Department to Senior Deputy Accountant General (A & E) Shakti Nagar, Jammu, it has been clarified when the final refund of GPF takes place, the interest up to the end of the month preceding that in which the payment is made is to be calculated and paid as per Note 1 below Rule 7 of the Rules. Clause 13.12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Financial Code also provides that unclaimed amounts standing at the credit of the subscribers in provident fund under the control of the government are transferred to this head and these deposits should thereafter be dealt with in accordance with the rules governing them. 10. Thus from conjoint reading of aforesaid rules as well as Financial Code and Compendium, it is evident that it does not contain any provision that an employee has to withdraw the amount of general provident fund within a period of six months. On the other hand, the Rules cast a duty under Rule 20 of the Rules on the respondents that in case if the amount due under the provident fund is not claimed for a period exceeding two years, the same should be transferred to the deposits at the end of each year and be dealt with under the ordinary rules relating to deposits. 11. The learned Single Judge, however, has failed to take note of the aforesaid aspect of the matter which has a material bearing on the controversy involved in this bench of appeals. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions in a cursory manner by simply stating that SRO 254 dated 02.09.2008 is prospective in nature and the appellants have made their claims for withdrawal of GPF amount beyond six months. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions in a cursory manner by simply stating that SRO 254 dated 02.09.2008 is prospective in nature and the appellants have made their claims for withdrawal of GPF amount beyond six months. As stated supra, there is no requirement in the Rules or the Financial Code to make an application for withdrawal of the amount of general provident fund within a period of six months. On the other hand, Rule 20 of the Rules casts a duty on the respondents in case if the amount due under the provident fund is not claimed for a period exceeding two years, then the same should be transferred to the deposits at the end of each year and be dealt with under the ordinary rules relating to deposits. The respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their inaction and deprive the appellants of the amount which is legitimately due to them. The issue involved in these appeals is no longer res integra and has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir and others (supra). Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment read as under: 8. The said reason cannot be cited as a valid reason to deny interest, as Rule 7 specifically contemplates payment of interest for the belated payment. Respondent having submitted application claiming GPF deposits within six months of his retirement, the learned single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition. The delay in processing the application at the office of the appellants cannot be the valid reason to deny interest to the respondent. 9. Interest for delayed payment of terminal benefits was ordered in the following decisions: (i) In 2000 (2) SLR 686 (Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered to pay 18% interest from the date of retirement till the date of payment of all the retirement dues. (ii) In 2002 (7) SLR 760 (Government of A.P. v. C.Purushotham) a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court ordered 12% interest for the belated payment of terminal benefits. (iii) Same is the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions reported in 2003(2) SLR 326 (H.Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd) and (2001) 6 SCC 591 (Gorakhpur University v. Dr.Shitla Prasad Nagendra). (iii) Same is the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions reported in 2003(2) SLR 326 (H.Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd) and (2001) 6 SCC 591 (Gorakhpur University v. Dr.Shitla Prasad Nagendra). (iv) In (2006) 6 SCC 455 (Union of India v. M.S. Abdulla) the Supreme Court ordered 12% interest per annum for the belated payment of retirement benefits for a person, who voluntarily retired from service. (v) In (2008) 3 SCC 44 (S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana) the Apex Court held that even in the absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision. Besides that, it is well settled in law that retrial benefits are not in the nature of the bounty and interest on the same can be claimed on the strength of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the appellants under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 12. So far as reference made by learned Government Advocate to communication dated 2302.2006 is concerned, the same only provides for manner of computation of interest. Similarly, by Office Memorandum dated 03.03.2006 to which reference has been made by learned Government Advocate, it is provided that the amount which remains unclaimed beyond the period of six months, the same should be transferred as required under Rule 20 of the Rules. Therefore, the aforesaid Office Memorandum is of no assistance to the respondents in the fact situation of the case. 13. In view of preceding analysis, the impugned judgment dated 28.08.2009 in so far as it pertains to appellants in LPASW No. 37/2010, LPASW No. 143/2010 & LPASW No. 127/2010 is hereby and the respondents are directed to release the interest on the amount of GP fund from the date it has been purportedly withheld till the date of payment. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of four months from today. 14. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.