IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.701 of 2006 UPENDRA NATH SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03/ 01.02.2010 Mr. Bankey Bihari Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, learned assisting counsel to G.P. 12 are present. The petitioner who retired from the post of Assistant Teacher in L.P. School, Bodhchak, in the district of Gaya has filed the writ petition for payment of the employees contribution as until 1970, the difference of pay for the period 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973 which was deposited in the G.P.F. account together with statutory interest thereon and payment of the G.P.F. amount together with interest admissible to the petitioner in terms of the Government of Bihar, Finance Department Circular dated 23.11.1996, copy of which is placed at Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The said Circular in paragraph-3 stipulates that the subscriber employees would be the entitled to 10.5 per cent for the month in which the deductions have been made at the said rate and an interest of Rs. 12.5 per cent for such of the month in which deductions have been made at the rate of 12.5 per cent. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have mis-calculated the interest admissible on the G.P.F. 2 dues by calculating the rate of interest at a flat rate of 10 per cent even for the months in which the deductions were made at the rate of 12.5. per cent and which was in contravention of the said Circular dated 23.11.2006. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State with reference to a counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 5, the District Provident Fund Officer, Nawada, more particularly to paragraph-8 thereof, submits that as the deductions made from the petitioner’s salary, was less than 12.5 per cent hence following the stipulations made in the letter no. 1606 of the State Government dated 27.10.1995 (Annexure-G), the petitioner was not found entitled to interest at the rate of 12.5 per cent. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in response thereto submits that Annexure-4 dated 12.3.1996 is a Circular issued in supersession of the Circular relied upon by the State dated 27.10.1995 and has explained the misconception present in the said Circular clarifying that the employees would be entitled to interest at the rate at which the deductions are made in each month. Having regard to the circumstances that the admissible amount as according to the respondents together with admissible interest as per the estimations of 3 the respondents has been paid to the petitioner and now the issue is only limited to the calculation of interest, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending. The petitioner, if so advised, may raise his claim for interest as regarding the difference of salary for the period 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973 and the G.P.F. amount, before the District Provident Fund Officer, Nawada, respondent no. 5 together with a copy of the Circular dated 23.11.1996 and supportive documents showing in detail and demonstrating that the calculation made by the respondents as regarding interest was not correct and that the petitioner was entitled to further amount by way of interest. The said claim of the petitioner would be examined by the respondent no. 5, the District Provident Fund Officer, Nawada in the light of the stipulations made in the Circular dated 23.11.1996 and if the claim is found to be correct then the amount admissible to the petitioner by way of interest should be paid to him within three months from the date on which such claim petition is filed. However, if the claim is not found to be admissible, it should be rejected by a speaking order. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions aforesaid. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)