CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1683 OF 2005 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH Son of Late Ramdeo Singh, R/O village-Bagh Majhana, P.S.Koilwar, District- Bhojpur, presently resident of Jai Prakash Nagar, Nalapar, Ashiaya Nagar, Nalapar, P.S.- Digha, District-Patna. Appellant. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, 2.The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, 3.The Finance Commissioner, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 4.The Director of Provident Fund, Finance Department, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 5.The District Provident Fund Officer, Bhagalpur 6. The Settlement Officer, Bhagalpur 7.The Assistant Settlement Officer (Headquarter) Bhagalpur 8.The Accountant General, (A & E), Bihar, Patna. Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Deva Kumar Prasad Sinha For the State :Mrs.Archana Sinha, AC to GP-14 For the Accountant General, Bihar :Mr. S.M.Ehtasham P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has limited his relief to the prayer made in para-1 of the writ petition whereunder he seeks a direction to the respondent 2 authorities, more particularly, the respondent nos.4 to 7 to recalculate the rate of interest on his provident fund deductions and to provide him the interest at the rate of 12.5 % after adjusting the interest accorded to him at the rate of 10.5 %. Brief facts of the matter is that the petitioner joined the service as a Lower Division Assistant in the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi on 10.8.1964 and subsequently was posted as a Circle Inspector with effect from 4.9.1965. After having obtained time bound promotion, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Circle Officer and from which post he superannuated with effect from 3.9.1997. The grievance set out by the petitioner is that despite the clear stipulations made in the resolution of the Finance Department dated 13.7.1985 prescribing the rate of interest at 12.5 % with effect from 1.7.1985 except in cases in which an employee exercises option for contributing in terms of the notification dated 18.5.1983 and the stipulations made in resolution dated 23.11.1984 providing for an interest at the rate of 10 % per annum, the respondents have not calculated the interest correctly. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the position that the petitioner never exercised any option to be governed by the earlier resolution prescribing for 10 % interest and thus he was governed by the stipulations made in the resolution dated 13.7.1985 regarding deductions and prescriptions of interest at the rate of 12.5%, he has been denied with the same and thus, been put at loss. Learned counsel next submits that he had earlier moved this court through C.W.J.C.No.9238 of 1999 and which was disposed of by order dated 25.4.2001 in terms of the general direction requiring the authorities to make payment of the admissible dues. Pursuant to the order of this court, the respondent authorities though made payment of his dues but in so far as the provident fund amount was concerned, the interest element was incorrectly calculated and which led to the filing of a representation by the petitioner, copy whereof is placed at Annexure-5 to the writ petition and is dated 28.5.2001. Learned counsel submits that he had very elaborately pointed out to the District Provident Fund Officer, Bhagalpur regarding the incorrect calculation of the interest amount and had prayed for payment of the correct amount in 4 terms of the circular dated 13.7.1985 (Annexure-6) after adjusting the amount already paid to the petitioner. The admitted position is that the petitioner has been paid the amount of provident fund to the tune of Rs.4,15,678/- on the basis of the interest calculation carried out by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel submits that the same has not been done in accordance with law. Learned counsel, with reference to the deduction chart placed at Annexure-12, submits that in fact the additional differential amount which was required to be deposited for earning the interest of 12.5 % was realized by the authorities and which fact is evident from the entries made in the deduction chart which shows that the arrears for the period 1.7.1995 to 31.1.1996 as also the D.A. amount for the period 1.1.1996 to 31.7.1996 amounting to Rs.6474/- was deposited in the provident fund account. He thus submits that having recouped with the differential amount, the petitioner became entitled for statutory interest at the rate of 12.5 % on his total deductions. Mrs. Archana Sinha, learned Assisting Counsel to G.P.14 representing the respondent authorities, with reference to para-6 of the counter affidavit 5 filed on behalf of the respondent no.5 the District Accounts Officer holding additional charge of the District provident Fund Officer, Bhagalpur, submits that the deductions were as per the option of the concerned employee and if the employee did not object to the deductions and if the deductions were at a lesser rate than required for earning interest at the rate of 12.5%, he could not ask for higher interest. She further submits that as differential amount had been deposited after the expiry of the relaxation period, i.e after December, 1985, which was a deadline fixed for joining the new scheme, he was not entitled for the interest at the rate of 12.5%. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in response to the objection raised by Mrs. Sinha, submits that the issue is eloquent from the stipulations made in the circular dated 13.7.1985 (Annexure-6) which in no uncertain terms provided that all employees would be entitled to a interest at the rate of 12.5% except such of the employee, who opted out of the said stipulation. He thus submits that as admittedly the petitioner never opted out of the said stipulations, he was entitled to deduction and interest of 12.5 % interest. 6 The respondents have chosen to deny the claim of the petitioner even while admitting that the petitioner indeed deposited the required additional differential amount for payment of the interest at the rate of 12.5 %. It is stated that the same was deposited after the deadline in December, 1985 and for which they rely upon the stipulations made in the circular bearing no.1606 dated 27.10.1995 (Annexure-10). The circular of 1995 certainly can not restrict the benefits to which the petitioner was entitled under the circular dated 13.7.1985, which had a general application with subjective exceptions. As admittedly the differential amount has since been paid to the petitioner and also accepted by the respondents District Provident Fund officer in para-8 of the counter affidavit, taking into consideration the stipulations made in the resolution dated 13.7.1985, I deem it fit to hold that the petitioner would be entitled to the interest at the rate of 12.5 %. The respondent District Provident Fund Officer, Bhagalpur would recalculate the interest element on the G.P.F. deductions of the petitioner and make payment thereof after adjusting the interest amount received by the petitioner within a 7 period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. (Jyoti Saran,J.) Patna High Court, Dated, 20th April, 2010. NAFR. ahk