IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13211 of 2007 Dalit Paswan, Son of Late Tahal Paswan, Resident of Ambedkar Mission, Chitkohra, P.S. – Gardnibagh, District – Patna. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Labour Employment & Training, Patna, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Labour Employment & Training, Patna. 4. The Joint Commissioner, Account Administration, Provident Fund Directorate, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Patna. 6. The Assistant Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 7. The Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. --------- Respondents --------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. R.C.P. Bharti, Advocate Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, Advocate For the State: Mr. J.S. Arora, S.C. No. VI ----------- 4 28.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.S. Arora, learned Standing Counsel No. VI, who appears on behalf of all the Respondents/State of Bihar. The present writ petition has been filed with a limited prayer to direct the respondents to make payment of interest on delayed payment of amount under the head of Group Provident Fund till the date of issuance of authority slip. The petitioner had retired with effect from 30.04.2000 from the post of Joint Secretary, Labour Employment & Training Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. The petitioner has claimed that he submitted withdrawal form relating to payment of G.P.F. amount within specified time and as such the authority concerned was required to make payment of interest on G.P.F. amount till the date of 2 authorization. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to ‘Annexure – 1’ to the writ petition i.e. authorization issued by the Directorate of Provident Fund/District Provident Fund Office. He submits that perusal of ‘Annexure – 1’ makes it clear that interest on the amount of G.P.F. was calculated till the month of October 2000, whereas, authorization was issued on 11.10.2002. He submits that in the present case latches was not on the part of the petitioner but due to latches of the authority concerned delay had occurred in payment of the G.P.F. amount, and as such, the petitioner was entitled to get statutory interest till the date of authorization. In support of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2010(3) PLJR 906 (State of Bihar & Ors. Vs Ram Pavitra Singh). In this case, two counter affidavits have been filed. One on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and second affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to statement made in paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and submits that the Respondents themselves have admitted that withdrawal form was submitted by the petitioner on 06.04.2000 i.e. twenty four days prior to his retirement. The petitioner retired with effect from 30.04.2000. 3 Sri J.S. Arora, learned Standing Counsel No. 6, has tried to develop an argument on the basis of averment made in paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 7 i.e. Deputy Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna, that there were some errors in the form and due to that reason delay had occurred. Accordingly, it was submitted that it is not a case in which a conclusive finding can be recorded that delay in payment has occurred due to only latches of the authority concerned, and as such, according to Sri Arora, the petitioner is not entitled to get interest till the date of authorization and ‘Annexure – 1’ was rightly issued. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties I have also perused the material available on record. Since in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, it was specifically admitted that withdrawal form was submitted before retirement of the petitioner i.e. on 06.04.2000, there would be no ambiguity in coming to the conclusive finding that withdrawal form by the petitioner was submitted within time. Whether there were some errors or not it hardly matters. Accordingly, in view of specific statement made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, there is no reason to doubt the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had submitted withdrawal form in respect of G.P.F. within 4 time. So far as payment of interest on delayed payment of amount of G.P.F. is concerned, it has been categorically held by Division Bench in Ram Pavitra Singh’s Case (Supra), that if delay is on the part of the authority concerned, interest shall be calculated till the date of authorization of the amount. It would be appropriate to refer paragraph no. 10 of the said judgment which is as follows:- “In the factual premises of this case there would be no need to go into the question of interpretation of Rule 14 of the G.P.F. Rules or to the circulars dated 9.5.1988 and 5.3.2001, in as much as the State Government has repeatedly insisted that the delay by the authority in making payment of provident fund would not deprive the employee in getting the benefit of payment of interest. This aspect of the matter in fact has been clarified by the Finance Commissioner of the State of Bihar in his circular dated 5.3.2001 while explaining the scope of the earlier circular dated 6th May, 1988 on the subject wherein it has been clearly stipulated that the interest beyond a period of six months will not be paid only in such case where the application was filed after a period of six months. In this context from the reading of the circular dated 5.3.2001 it is quite explicit that if after receipt of the application for final withdrawal of G.P.F. the delay in payment is on account of administrative lapses on the part of the Drawing and Disbursing/sanctioning authority, the interest will be paid upto the date of payment and the amount of interest paid in excess of the period of six months will be recovered from the concerned erring officials.” In view of the law settled by Division Bench of this Court as well as the fact that in the present case petitioner had 5 submitted withdrawal form within time, there is no reason to refuse the prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the Respondent to calculate interest from the month of October, 2000 to 11.10.2002, and thereafter, the interest amount must be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed. Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)