IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.336 of 2007 ANANT KISHOR, son of Late Musafir Singh, resident of Village- Barat, P. O. Baignathpur, P.S. – Hasua, District – Nawada. …………………………… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through Secretary Primary Education Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Primary Education Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Nawada. 5. The District Provident Fund Officer, Nawada. ……………………………………………. Respondents ----------- 2 09.02.2009 The petitioner has three grievances firstly he states that pursuant to pay revision and decision of the government the incremental be that was to be paid to people like the petitioner in between 1971 and 1973 was directed to be deposited in their GPF account. Grievance is that once it was deposited in the GPF account it should have earned an interest which is payable for amount standing in the credit of GPF and not a difference interest. Here the petitioner has been paid the said amount only with simple interest of 6% per annum which is much less than the interest i.e. credited to amount standing in credit to the GPF account in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 4 or for that matter again filed on behalf of respondent no. 5. It is admitted that interest only @ 6% has been paid and a chart in respect thereof has also been annexed. No justification for this has been given. I, therefore, I am constrained to hold that the calculation as given by the State cannot be accepted. Petitioner is entitled to interest as was payable in the GPF account on the amount - 2 - of salary difference. The same would be verified and accordingly the difference would be payable to the petitioner. The second grievance of the petitioner is with regard to interest payable w.e.f. 1985 in the GPF account. He states that the interest was payable 12.5% to encourage the savings. Respondents have stated that while that was scheme it was clearly provided that the petitioner must give an option and along with the option he was required to deposit. He had to ensure that a deduction @ 12.5% be made from a salary for credit to his GPF account petitioner has annexed deduction certificate from 1985 onwards merely showing that all along deduction was made not at 10% but 12.5% from his salary. The new scheme brought about in the year 1985 on petitioner’s contribution being increased from 10% to 12.5% petitioner became entitled to an interest @ 12.5% in the GPF account this has not been given. Rather interest at 10% alone has been given to respondents in my view are correct in their stand inasmuch as the petitioner had to opt for the new scheme respondent is right in containing that as would be evident from petitioner’s own account up to December 1985. Deduction were made only at 10% showing that the petitioner had not opted for higher deduction to be entitled to higher interest. Later the Government granted the realization clearly specify that even now persons who had not exercised option and who had not got deductions done at 12.5% in the first year of the scheme i.e. 1985 may still get benefit if the - 3 - arrears i.e. 2.5% per month as deposited from April 1985 to November 1985. Admittedly, this in the case of petitioner was not done. Petitioner then refers to Annexure-5 a circular of 1996 to show that the government provided that whenever in any month deduction at 12.5% is made and deposited to GPF account interest would be paid at 12.5% and the months in which deduction was less than the said amount interest at 10% for that year would be paid. Petitioner submits that as per the said circular as from 1986 onwards deduction was made at 12.5%. Petitioner was entitled to interest at 12.5%. In my view, the contention of the petitioner is misconceived. This circular is applicable only to those people who fail in the preferred group under the new scheme. In view of the facts that discussed above it will be clear that petitioner did not opt for the new scheme he did not get arrears deposited in GPF thus irrespective of the deductions he was not entitled to interest @ 12.5% the grievance is misconceived. Lastly, the third grievance of the petitioner is with regard to non-accounting of GPF which was deducted when he was in the service of District Board up to the year 1976 from 1962. The counter affidavits do not controvert or comment upon this grievance of the petitioner in this regard it would be better if the petitioner makes a representation to the District Provident Fund Officer giving details with a copy marked to the District Superintendent of Education giving details as may be available to - 4 - the petitioner. The two officers would collaborate with each other, come to a decision in the matter and communicate the same within one month of petitioner filing a detail representation in this regard to them. This disposes of the writ application. Kundan (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)