IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1045 of 2008 RAM BILAS SINGH S/O LATE RAMGOVIND SINGH, R/O VILLAGE + MOHALLA-SHERGHATI MUNSHI TOLA P.S. -SHERGHATI DISTT- GAYA----------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA 3. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,GAYA 4. DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER,GAYA----RESPONDENTS ----------- 3 27.3.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner submits that he is entitled to statutory interest on the delayed payment of GPF amount to him. But a categorical statement has been made in the counter affidavit filed specially paragraph-5 that the petitioner did not file application in the prescribed proforma which has been the reason for the respondents for non-authorization earlier. These are matters of record which ought to be verified and no direction can be issued for payment of interest of statutory kind on mere asking. The Court however has no hesitation in allowing the petitioner to lodge his claim on the concerned District Provident Fund Officer or District Superintendent of Education in this regard. After lodging such claim the respondents can verify the position as to when proper application has been filed and when the payment has been made. If there has been unexplained delay on behalf of the respondents then it is needless to say that they will have to work out the interest component on the GPF amount for the period they have delayed in payment of such amount. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that GPF - 2 - for the period 1976 to 1992 was initially not paid but the same has now been worked out and authorization has been made vide letter dated 31.10.2008 and forwarded to the Drawing & Disbursing Office vide letter dated 24.11.2008. But the petitioner states that to his knowledge this payment has not accrued to him. It is hereby recorded that the Drawing and Disbursing Office shall expedite payment of this amount, if it has not been paid already to the petitioner. Though a categorical statement has been made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3. the District Superintendent of Education, that there is no provision for fixation of pension after adding medical benefit/allowance but monthly pension includes dearness allowance and medical allowance to which the petitioner is entitled to. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the statement which is a matter of verification of records and rules made in this regard he may approach the competent authority for clarification of the position. There is no occasion for this Court to direct the respondent on this issue. This writ application stands disposed of with the direction to the respondents to implement the order as directed in earlier part within a period of three months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)