Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 323 (JK)

Maheshwar Nath Pandita v. State of J&K

2018-05-21

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner was working as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Power Development Department and retired on superannuation on 30.09.2002. Besides other claims, the petitioner submitted his claim in Form 10 for release of GP Fund to the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The Drawing and Disbursing Officer as is revealed from the objections of respondent No. 3, submitted the case of the petitioner for release of his GP fund to the office of respondent No. 3 vide his endorsement No. MC/PDD-570 dated 09.11.2002. It is claimed by respondent No. 3 that though the claim submitted by the petitioner for release of his GP Fund bears the endorsement of the DDO concerned dated 09.11.2002 but the same was actually received by respondent No. 3 on 16.05.2006. Immediately, the matter was processed and sum of Rs. 3,59,768/- on account of GP Fund was released in favour of the petitioner. He was also released the amount of interest as accrued on the amount up to ending March, 2003. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved of denial of interest on the amount of GP Fund released in his favour which as per the petitioner should have been calculated upto18.05.2006 and has, therefore, filed this petition. In the petition, the petitioner has, inter-alia, prayed for grant of interest w.e.f. September, 2003 till 16.05.2006, i.e. the date when the GP Fund amount was actually paid to the petitioner. 3. It is claimed by the petitioner that being a permanent employee of the PDD, he had been subscribing to the GP Fund regularly till he attained superannuation on 30.09.2002. It is the positive case of the petitioner that immediately upon his retirement, he lodged his claim for release of GP Fund without any loss of time. He filled up Form 10 and completed all the requisite formalities and submitted the same to his Drawing and Disbursing Officer. But his GP Fund amount was released only on 16.05.2006 and the interest on the amount that was payable to the petitioner was calculated only up to March, 2003. His grievance, in this petition, is that since he had lodged his claim within six months and therefore, he could not have been denied the statutory interest that had accrued on the amount and was payable up to 16.05.2006. 4. His grievance, in this petition, is that since he had lodged his claim within six months and therefore, he could not have been denied the statutory interest that had accrued on the amount and was payable up to 16.05.2006. 4. Respondent No. 3 has filed his objections and in paragraph 3 of the objections, has categorically stated that though the case submitted by the DDO of the petitioner bears the endorsement dated 09.11.2002 but the same was actually received by him only on 28.04.2006. Respondent No. 3 has further stated in the objections that immediately the matter was processed and the GP Fund amount payable to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 3,59,768/- along with accrued interest up to March, 2003 was released in favour of the petitioner on 16.05.2006. To deny him the statutory interest up to the date of actual payment, the respondents have relied upon Rule 20 of the Appendix (XVI-A) of the K.S.R. Volume-II. The respondents have also relied upon a communication of the Finance Department issued vide No. FD/Coord-22/2006 dated 23.02.2006. On the basis of aforesaid communication, it is claimed by the respondents that since the claim of the petitioner was received by them only on 16.05.2006 and as such, he was found entitled to the interest only up to the period of six months from the date of his superannuation. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it would be necessary to first set out the provisions of Rule 20 of the Appendix (XVI-A) of the K.S.R. Volume-II which reads as under: “20. Unclaimed Deposits:- Sums remaining unclaimed for a period of 6 months should be transferred to deposit at the end of each year, and dealt with under the ordinary rules relating to deposits.” 6. From the perusal of Rule 20, it is clear that if sum of GP Fund remains unclaimed for a period exceeding six months, the same is required to be transferred to the deposit at the end of each year and the same would not earn any interest. The Rule 20 thus only provides that if an employee on his retirement does not submit his claim for release of GP Fund within a period of six months, he cannot claim a statutory interest on such sum after expiry of six months. The Rule 20 thus only provides that if an employee on his retirement does not submit his claim for release of GP Fund within a period of six months, he cannot claim a statutory interest on such sum after expiry of six months. In the light of provisions of Rule 20, it needs to be seen as to whether in the instant case the petitioner has failed to lodge his claim for GP Fund within a period of six months and if so, whether the delay in lodging the claim, if any is, in any way, attributable to the petitioner. 7. From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties, particularly the stand taken by the respondents, it is abundantly clear that there was no remissness on the part of the petitioner to submit his GP Fund claim. The fact that DDO of the petitioner after receiving Form 10 from the petitioner, had transmitted the same to respondent No. 3 on 09.11.2002, is apparent from the endorsement put by DDO on the case of the petitioner. It is, however, a different matter that the case of the petitioner which was complete and was endorsed by the DDO concerned was received in the office of respondent No. 3 on 28.04.2006. It thus, took almost three and a half years for the case of the petitioner to travel from the office of DDO to the office of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 may not be blamed for delay in releasing of GP Fund to the petitioner but the fact remains that the delay has actually occurred due to the official apathy which, cannot, by any stretch of reasoning be attributed to the petitioner. Needless to say that amount lying in the GP Fund account of the employee is hard money deposited by him during the course of his service and the same is required to be released in favour of the employee immediately upon his superannuation. The employee is only required to fill up Form 10 indicating therein the particulars of his account and other service particulars and rest of the formalities are required to be completed by the employer and the Funds Organization. Any delay on the part of the employer or the Funds Organization cannot prejudice the claim of the petitioner in any manner. The employee is only required to fill up Form 10 indicating therein the particulars of his account and other service particulars and rest of the formalities are required to be completed by the employer and the Funds Organization. Any delay on the part of the employer or the Funds Organization cannot prejudice the claim of the petitioner in any manner. The circular preferred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is nothing but an attempt by the respondents to explain the purport of Rule 20 (Supra) reproduced above. While there is no dispute with regard to the interpretation put by the Finance Department on Rule 20 but the fact remains that in the instant case, there is found no remissness on the part of the petitioner who submitted his claim before the expiry of prescribed period. That being so, the petitioner cannot be panelized for the fault of others. This Court may not be in a position to say as to whether the claim of the petitioner was delayed at the hands of his employer or the Funds Organization, but the fact remains that there is nothing on record to show that there was some negligence or lapse attributable to the petitioner in the matter of submission of GP Fund claim. 8. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and respondent No. 3 is directed to release the balance amount of interest, i.e. the interest that has accrued on the amount up to 16.05.2006 minus the interest already paid. The amount that would become payable to the petitioner shall carry simple interest @ 7½ % per annum w.e.f. 16.05.2006 till it is actually paid to the petitioner. Let the respondents do the needful aforesaid within a period of two months from today.