JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. I.A. No. 4718 of 2023 1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 91 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No.4718 of 2023 is allowed and the 91 days’ delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.211 of 2022 5. The appeal is under Clause 10 of Letters Patent directed against the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 494 of 2021 wherein and whereunder the learned Single Judge has passed direction upon the respondent to disburse the amount of interest to the tune of Rs.5,79,822/- by way of interest upon the principal amount of GPF, already paid in favour of the petitioner. 6. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding which are required to be enumerated, reads hereunder as :- 7. It is the case of the petitioner that vide office order no. 211-219 dated 30.04.1985, issued by District Adult Education Officer, Bhojpur (Aara), the petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk in the office of Adult and Non-Formal Education Project, Dumrao- Nawanagar, in the pay-scale of Rs.580-10-620-15-770EB 15-860. 8. After the bifurcation of the State of Bihar vide Resolution Nos. 824 and 77 dated 30-05-2007 and 10-1-2008 respectively, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk vide Office order no. 314 dated 01.02.2008, in Ram Rudra +2 High School, Chas, Bokaro. 9. The petitioner's Provident Fund Account No.General BJP/EDN/2675F was opened vide order no. 1256 dated 03.06.1988, issued by District Provident Fund Officer, Bhojpur (Aara). 10. The petitioner superannuated from the said post on 31.01.2019. 11. After retirement, the petitioner applied for amount, for interim withdrawal of General Provident Fund amount and in response thereto, the office of District Provident Fund Officer vide letter no. 141 dated 13.03.2019, issued letter of authority, authorizing District Education Officer, Bokaro to withdraw the General Provident fund amount of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.10,05,403/- and to make payment of the same in favour of the petitioner. 12. 141 dated 13.03.2019, issued letter of authority, authorizing District Education Officer, Bokaro to withdraw the General Provident fund amount of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.10,05,403/- and to make payment of the same in favour of the petitioner. 12. Thereafter, the petitioner contacted the office of District Education Officer, Bokaro and learnt that District Treasury, Bokaro has issued the bill of the General Provident Fund amount of the petitioner, but put a stamp over it as "Bill passed but not paid" and returned the file to the office of District Education Officer, Chas, Bokaro. 13. Being aggrieved against the action of the respondents concerned, the petitioner has made several representations to the authorities concerned, but no response has been given. 14. Thereafter, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.494 of 2021. 15. The State appeared before the writ court has taken the ground that since the petitioner falls under the New Pension Scheme, as such, he has been denied the benefit of GPF as well as interest thereon. 16. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, has allowed the writ petition vide order dated 22.03.2022 directing the respondent State to make payment of interest over the amount of GPF. 17. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the State has preferred the instant appeal. 18. It is evident that the petitioner while working under the Adult Education and after rendering service for substantial period, the petitioner has been stopped from discharging his duty along with the others. 19. Subsequently, by virtue of the policy decision, the services of the petitioner has been absorbed treated to be new appointment. 20. The petitioner, after being absorbed, has claimed his amount of GPF but the same has not been paid. 21. The writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 494 of 2021 praying therein for payment of the GPF amount to the tune of Rs. 1005,404/-along with statutory interest and during pendency of the writ petition, the amount of GPF has been paid but without the interest component. 22. 21. The writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 494 of 2021 praying therein for payment of the GPF amount to the tune of Rs. 1005,404/-along with statutory interest and during pendency of the writ petition, the amount of GPF has been paid but without the interest component. 22. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the fact that the amount of GPF has already been deducted which has also been paid as also considering the fact that the benefit of interest has been given to the similarly situated persons, while allowing the writ petition, directed the respondent to make payment of Rs.5,79,822/- by way of interest on the principal amount of GPF which is under challenge in this appeal. 23. Mr. Sharad Kaushal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that order passed by Single Judge suffers from error in view of the fact that after absorption when the service of the writ petitioner has been treated to be new appointment, hence, he is not entitled for interest. 24. While on the other hand, Mrs. Rita Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the absorption has nothing to do with the disbursement of the amount so far as it relates to the payment of GPF amount due to the reason that the amount for GPF was already deducted and deposited in their respective GPF accounts and considering the aforesaid fact the principal amount deducted and deposited in the respective GPF account has also been paid but without any interest. 25. The submission has been made by referring to GPF Rules where the principal amount is to be paid along with the statutory interest. 26. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, has directed the respondents to make payment of the interest to the tune of Rs.5,79,822/- as such, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 27. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings recorded by the Single Judge in the impugned order. 28. 27. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings recorded by the Single Judge in the impugned order. 28. The issue which has been agitated on behalf of the appellant in the present case by filing the instant appeal is that after absorption in service by virtue of the policy decision the petitioner is not entitled to get interest over the principal amount of the GPF. 29. This Court, on appreciation of the rival submission, is of the view that such argument/ground cannot be said to be a cogent ground to intervene in the impugned order reason being that the absorption is altogether a different decision based upon the policy decision of the State Government which was taken for the purpose of absorption of one or the other employees who were working in the Adult Education Department of the erstwhile State of Bihar and subsequently, their cadre has been allocated to the State of Jharkhand. 30. The writ petitioner-respondent herein is not claiming any benefit after having his absorption in service, rather, is claiming the amount of interest on the basis of the amount of GPF which has already been paid by the respondent in favour of the writ petitioner. 31. The policy decision of the State so far as the payment of GPF is concerned, is not in dispute and the same cannot be disputed by the respondent-State of the Jharkhand due to the reason that it is the State Government who has issued the circulars time to time for fixing the interest by issuance of various notification in this regard right from the year 1981, meaning thereby, the GPF amount always carries with the statutory interest as per the policy decision and the requirement as per the mandate. 32. The State of Jharkhand, the appellant herein, is not disputing the quantum of the amount of GPF, rather, the same has already been paid but without any interest. 33. The question herein is that when the policy for making payment of the GPF account carries that the amount be paid with statutory interest, then how can the action of the State denying the amount of interest to be paid in favour of the petitioner over the GPF head can be said to be proper. 34. 33. The question herein is that when the policy for making payment of the GPF account carries that the amount be paid with statutory interest, then how can the action of the State denying the amount of interest to be paid in favour of the petitioner over the GPF head can be said to be proper. 34. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact as also considering the fact that the similarly situated employees have already been paid the benefit of GPF along with interest which have been taken note in the impugned order, has passed the order directing the respondents to pay the amount of interest to the tune of Rs.5,79,822/-. 35. This Court, therefore, is of the view that while passing such order, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error. 36. The learned Single Judge since has directed to calculate the amount afresh within the period of 8 weeks but during the pendency of the instant appeal aforesaid 8 weeks has elapsed, therefore, the appellants are directed to calculate the interest amount within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 37. The instant appeal is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. 38. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.