IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7163 of 2009 SUMITRA DEVI, wife of late Heera Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Christan Quarter, P.S. Bettiah town District-West Champaran Versus 1. THE CHIEF G.M.,STATE BANK OF INDIA, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna. 2. Zonal Manager, Regional Office-I, State Bank of India, Club Road, Muzaffarpur 3. The Committee of Trustee, State Bank of India, Employee Fund Bombay. 4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Samastipur Branch, Samastipur. ----------- 6 18.03.2010 Heard Mr. D.K. Tondon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Bank of India. The petitioner is a widow of late Heera Prasad and seeks a direction from this Court for payment of the Provident Fund amount of Rs. 66,003.89 pending admissible to her late husband together with interest. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bank and in which it is stated that the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 8.11.1989 and as a consequence of the dismissal he was sanctioned an amount of Rs. 67093.89 being the balance of the credit standing in the provident fund account of the husband of the 2 petitioner including the interest thereon. However, it was mentioned that as it was a case of dismissal hence the employee was not entitled to the Banks contribution of Rs. 37,480.97 in terms of the Rule 24 of the State Bank of India, Employee’s Provident Fund Rules but entitled to receive the employees contribution of Rs. 29,612.92. It is stated that in the light of the decision taken, the General Manager vide letter dated 15.6.1990 advised the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India to debit the amount of LHO, Patna and pay the members contribution to the late husband of the petitioner and pursuant whereto a registered letter dated 22.6.1990 (Annexure- B) was sent to the husband of the petitioner to receive the payment after completion of the formalities. It is contended that despite the advice of the Zonal office to the late husband of the petitioner to receive the amount, he did not contact the concerned Branch until 24.9.1990 and which fact is manifest from the letter of the said date issued by the Deputy General Manager placed at Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. The husband of the petitioner expired on 26.5.2000. It is thus 3 contended that as the husband of the petitioner since after the issuance of the letter dated 24.9.1990 (Annexure-C) until his death on 26.5.2000 did not raise any grievance with the Bank regarding non payment of the P.F. amount, the same by itself showed that the amount must have been received by the husband. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank further raises objections of laches and delay on the part of the writ petitioner in raising the claim after lapse of almost 17 years since the death of her late husband. He submits that on that account alone the writ petition was fit to be dismissed. It is further submitted that in terms of the provisions of the Banking Companies, (Period of Preservation of Records), Rules 1985, framed by the Central Government in consultation by the Reserve Bank of India and the powers vested under Section 45 (Y) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Bank Companies are not required to maintain any document beyond the period of eight years. It is thus submitted that there is no record with regard to the claim set out by the petitioner. Undoubtedly, the petitioner being the 4 widow of Heera Prasad has moved this Court after some delay but the claim is statutorily admissible to her. Even if her husband was dismissed by the Bank and was not entitled to any other benefits but the members contribution was admittedly receivable by the dismissed employee and/ or his legal heirs, the widow in the present case. The widow complaining non payment of the said amount obviously, cannot produce any document in support of the said claim and in these circumstances, this Court by order dated 1.2.2010 had directed the counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank to verify the position and support the contention about payment of the said amount by way of documentary evidence. Despite the matter being taken up, more than six weeks thereafter, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the Bank shows helplessness in absence of any record pertaining to the said claim. In absence of any document controverting the claim set out by the petitioner, her claim has to be allowed. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction of the Bank to make payment of the amount of Rs. 29,612.92/- 5 only to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt production of a copy of this order. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )