IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11618 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: August 31, 2009 Smt. Amarjit Kaur .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release general provident fund to the petitioner alongwith interest on account of delayed payment. It has been pleaded that the petitioner, a widow, was serving in the Department of Health and Family Welfare. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2004 from Primary Health Centre, Sudhar, District Ludhiana on the post of Multipurpose Health Worker. Although five years have gone by, General Provident Fund has not been released. The petitioner has been approaching the respondents by way of written requests as also verbal requests, however, needful has not been done. It has been asserted that the petitioner is not at fault. On retirement C.W.P. No. 11618 of 2009 -2- of the petitioner itself, the retiral dues should have been paid to the petitioner. Legal notice was served on the respondents on 03.01.2006. The petitioner received a response asking the petitioner to indicate the GPF account number. Learned counsel states that the account number was already available with the respondents. Be that as it may, within a week of receipt of communication, the GPF account number was given to the respondents through the counsel of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent, in context of the claim of the petitioner, states that somehow wrong GPF account number came to be recorded in the record. Learned counsel further states that earlier the account number was being maintained by the Accountant General's office. Subsequently, this responsibility was transferred to the State Government and, therefore, the confusion arose. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, has not been able to point out any lacuna on the part of the conduct of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents further states that the GPF amount has already been released on 27.08.2009 i.e. after filing of the present petition. I have taken note of the fact that GPF amount has already been released in favour of the petitioner but without interest. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petitioner retired in April 2004. Petitioner, under the Rules governing the issue, is entitled to release all retiral benefits forthwith. The documents in relation to the retiral benefits are to be prepared in advance in anticipation on retirement. It being not disputed that the petitioner is not at fault, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest C.W.P. No. 11618 of 2009 -3- on delayed payment. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to allow interest to the petitioner @9% per annum for the delayed payment. The interest amount would be released in favour of the petitioner within three months of receipt of certified copy of the order. 31.08.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?