1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Habatta Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. S.B.CIVILWRIT PETITION NO.4282/2004 Date of Order : : 25/09/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Girish Sankhala, for the petitioner. Mr.Rameshwar Dave, Dy.Govt.Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to pay the interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment of GPF amount i.e. Rs.30,418/-, on his retirement. The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner sought voluntary retirement in order to contest the Panchayat election and vide Annexure-1, the 2 application filed by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement was accepted w.e.f. 31st January, 1995. Thereafter, as per the pleadings, more particularly the reply reveals that petitioner lost the election and again requested the respondent-Employer to reinstate him in service. The petitioner having been denied such reinstatement, had filed a civil suit before the Civil Court, Jalore and on dismissal of the civil suit, filed an appeal being Civil Appeal Decree No.8/98 before District Judge, Jalore, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 26th March, 1999. Thereafter, according to Deputy Government Counsel, the matter was challenged before this Court. However, the petitioner remained unsuccessful in that challenge as well. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31st January, 1995 and as such, on the retirement, he was entitled for the retiral benefit including the payment of GPF amount but the the payment of the GPF amount in a sum of Rs.30,418/- has been paid to the respondents on 14th June, 2001. Therefore, the petitioner seeks interest on the delayed payment of GPF w.e.f. 31st January, 1995 to 14th June, 2001. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the 3 petitioner that Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996 provides the payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity at the rate of 5% per annum. Similarly the Rajastathn Government Servants' General Provident Fund Rules, 1997 (for short “the Rules of 1997” hereinafter) also provids the payment of interest on the delayed payment. Learned counsel submits that Rule 20 of the Rules of 1997 provided the closure of account on cessation of service, which reads as under:- “20. Closure of account on cessation of service:- (a) The account of the subscriber shall be closed in the month next to the month in which deposits shall cease as provided in rule 12. (b) The Director shall repay the balance in the account along with interest upto the month proceeding the issue of payment authority after deducting withdrawal made during the year when an account is closed. (c) The payment shall be made to the account holder except in case of death when it shall be made to the nominee and in absence of nominee to the legal heir(s).” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the retirement of the petitioner, the payment of the GPF amount has been made almost after a period of 5 years and 4 therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment of GPF amount. Learned counsel has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Dr.Ratan Lal Mathur Vs. State & Ors., 1998(1) WLC (Raj.) 264. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent-State stating inter-alia that as per the Rules of 1997, the contributor/subscriber is required to submit the claim form before three months of his retirement or immediately after taking retirement as the case may be. The claim of the petitioner was first time received by the respondent No.2 through respondent No.3 on 3rd April, 2001 though the claim form which was received by the respondent No.2 on 3rd April, 2001 did not bear correct GPF account number of the petitioner and therefore, it was objected and the respondent No.3 was requested to send the correct GPF account number of the petitioner. After having received the correct GPF account number of the petitioner on 23rd April, 2001 vide Anenxure-R/1, the amount of GPF due to the petitioner has been paid promptly on 14th June, 2001. According to learned Deputy Government Counsel, there is no delay on the part of the respondents in making the payment of GPF amount and it was the petitioner, who did not submit his 5 claim within time for the reason that he sought voluntarily retirement w.e.f. 31st January, 1995 in order to contest the Panchayat election and having lost in election of Panchayat, he moved to the respondent No.3 for his reinstatement in service instead of completing the formalities including submitting the claim for grant of GPF amount and after having failed, filed a civil suit before the civil court at Jalore seeking his reinstatement in service and on dismissal of the civil suit, filed an appeal before District Judge, Jalore, which also came to be dismissed. Against which the petitioner sought remedy before this court but remained unsuccessful and after having lost upto this Court in the matter of reinstatement in service, a claim for grant of GPF amount has been made by the petitioner and on receipt of the claim in April 2001 through respondent No.3, the respondents No.1 and 2 acted upon the claim of the petitioner promptly and made the payment of GPF amount. As stated above, the claim of the petitioner for grant of GPF amount was received by the respondent No.2 through respondent No.3 on 3rd April, 2001 and the payment has been made on 14th June, 2001. This fact has not been disputed. The averments made in the reply more particularly with regard to the fact that it was the petitioner who has not submitted his claim form uptil 3rd April, 2001 as also the reason for not 6 making the claim is that he has been pursuing the remedy before the civil court seeking his reinstatement in service, have not been disputed nor controverted by way of rejoinder. In the case of Dr.Ratan Lal Mathur Vs. State & Ors (supra), there had not been any lapses on the part of the petitioner therein in submitting the claim form and it was the authorities, who failed to act promptly and for certain correspondence in between the departments, the delay has been caused and therefore, this Court held that for the delayed payment, the petitioner is entitled to the interest. In the instant case, as noticed above, no claim for grant of GPF amount was received by the respondent No.2 uptil 23rd April, 2001 and therefore, it cannot be said that after receiving the claim, any delay has been caused at the level of respondents No. 1 and 2. On the contrary, from the facts noticed above, it reveals that the petitioner was more interested for his reinstatement in service than getting the GPF amount and therefore, he has been pursuing the remedy before the civil court in seeking his reinstatement and finally when he lost even upto this Court, submitted his claim for grant of GPF amount. The decision relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner turns on its own facts and is of no help to the petitioner. In my view, there is no delay on the part of the respondents in making the 7 payment of GPF amount. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK