IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1392 of 2010 RADIKA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02/ 28.01.2010 Heard Mr. Mithilesh Kumar for the petitioner and Mr. Anant Kumar Bhashkar, learned assisting counsel to S.C. 2 for the State. The petitioner claims less payment towards general provident fund as admissible to her late husband who retired from the post of Scrapper Operator under the service of the State with effect from 29.2.1994 and expired on 19.9.2007. The petitioner claims that as against the G.P.F. amount of Rs. 67,718/-, her husband had received only Rs. 64,340/- and thus the concerned authorities of the Provident Fund Department had paid Rs. 3,378/- less to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that she is entitled for payment of the said amount of Rs. 3,378/- together with statutory interest to be calculated with effect from the date of retirement of her late husband. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer and submits that the writ petition should be dismissed on grounds of laches and delay and also on grounds that the petitioner has no locus to maintain the writ petition. Learned counsel for the State submits that the husband of the petitioner retired in the year 1994 and expired in the year 2007 but there is nothing on record of the proceedings to show that he at any stage 2 raised any grievance of having received less amount of provident fund. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to a chart placed at Annexure-2 of the writ petition submits that the details have been mentioned in the said chart and according to it the petitioner is entitled to a further amount of Rs. 3,378/- being the balance amount of provident fund. Learned counsel submits that he has also filed a representation before the respondent no. 6, the District Provident Fund Officer, Saharsa in relation to the claim of payment of Rs. 3,378/- together with interest and that her case has also been taken over by the Executive Engineer who vide letter dated 9.10.2009 (Annexure-4) has requested the District Provident Fund Officer, Saharsa to look into the matter. Having regard to the facts and circumstances set forth, no doubt there is substantial delay in filing of the writ petition with regard to the claim which dates back to the year 1994 but considering the fact that G.P.F. is a rightful claim of the petitioner and thus if found admissible, it should be paid to her. Having regard to the facts and circumstances set forth, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 6, the District Provident Fund Officer, Saharsa to examine the matter and if the petitioner is found entitled for any further amount towards general provident fund relatable to her late husband Chhangur Lal Gupta, the amount should be paid to her within a period of three months from the date of 3 production/receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that as admittedly the petitioner has raised this issue after a lapse of almost 16 years since the retirement of the late husband, this Court does not consider appropriate to grant statutory interest on the said payment for this delayed awareness. However, if the amount is ultimately found admissible to the petitioner, then she would be entitled to statutory interest calculated from 20.2.2008 being the date on which the representation as contained in Annexure-3 was filed before the District Provident Fund Officer, Saharsa until the date of actual payment. The writ petition stands disposed of. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)