IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8626 of 2005 Lallan Pd. Sinha, Son of Late Kamta Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Babu Bazar, New Area, Town and District Ara. ----------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabhua). 3. District Provident Fund Officer, Rohtas & Kaimur Sasaram. 4. Block Development Officer, Chand, District Kaimur (Bhabhua). --------- Respondents ----------- 4 21.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Reference may be made to the earlier order of this Court dated 7.5.2010. This Court had to record displeasure against the District Magistrate, Bhabhua, District Provident Fund Officer, Rohtas & Kaimur on account not explaining the issue of payment of provident fund amount for the period 1960 to 1975. Today, Mr. Abdul Manan, District Magistrate, Kaimur, Md. Jamil, District Provident Fund Officer, Kaimur and Mr. Rajjni Kant Jha, Block Development Officer, Chand, Kaimur are personally present. They have filed their counter affidavit enclosing details of the payment of provident fund for the period 1960 to 1975. Learned counsel for the petitioner, 2 however, seriously questions such statement by taking a plea that the total payment on the head of provident fund made to the petitioner comes to the tune of around rupees two lac only whereas the payment to which under the head of G.P.F. he was entitled to along with interest was around rupees nine lac as explained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. This Court, however, must clarify that annexure-1 is not an authentic document but based on the own calculation of the petitioner which he thought proper either in the matter of principal amount or the payment of interest. Nonetheless, as the claim of the petitioner is based on annexure-1, the authorities were required to controvert that fact in their counter affidavit. The other grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the delayed payment of the amount of leave encashment as such amount was paid after nine years of the entitlement and no interest thereon was paid to the petitioner. Counsel for the State would explain 3 that there is no statutory interest provided under the Rule on the amount of leave encashment. This Court, however, would hold that in term of the Government Circular providing for delayed payment of interest at the rate of 5 per annum on any delayed amount of retirement benefit, the same would also be payable on the amount of leave encashment. Let such calculation of the interest on the amount of leave encashment be made and its payment be also extended to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It will be open for the District Magistrate, Kaimur to recover the said amount of interest from the officer/employee who was responsible for making delayed payment of the amount of leave encashment. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the District Provident Fund Officer, Rohtas & Kaimur to decide the claim of the G.P.F. with interest by treating annexure-1 to the writ application to be the claim of the petitioner and pass an 4 order as to how much amount he would be entitled to and whether the entire payment has already been made. In the event, the District Provident Fund Officer would find that certain amount of provident fund or its interest had not been paid, he will be under obligation to pay the same within a period of two months from the date of passing of the order by him. It is made clear that the District Provident Fund Officer will also be required to pass an order in brief as with regard to the correctness and/or authenticity or entitlement of the amount reflected in Annexure-1 to the writ application. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)