CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.14508 OF 2004 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India). RANA PRATAP SINGH ---------------------Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS-----------------Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. RAM JANAM PRASAD, Adv. For the Respondent-Bank : Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Adv. For the Respondent-E.P.F. Organization: Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Senior. Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN Jyoti Saran, J.: Heard Mr. Ram Janam Prasad, for the petitioner, Mr. Jawed Gaffar, junior counsel to Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah, representing the respondent Bank and Mr. R.S. Pradhan, learned Senior counsel representing the Employees Provident Fund Organization and its authorities. The only issue that requires consideration of this Court is whether the recovery effected by the respondent Bank in purported exercise of power under the amended rule which was made effective in the Bank from 20.10.2003 would have a retrospective effect on an advance taken by the respondent- petitioner and having discharged the same on the date of 2 retirement on 31.07.2003. It is admitted position that the advance taken by the petitioner from his provident fund account stood adjusted against his dues on the date of his retirement and his admissible post retiral dues were paid by the Bank after making adjustment of the same, thus there remained no pending outstandings against the petitioner on his date of retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the statement made in paragraph 10, 11 and 12 of the writ petition, submits that the petitioner was entitled to his leave salary amount of Rs. 1,56,035.28 as also a sum of Rs. 15,033/- said to be the amount of provident fund together with interest. He thus submits that an amount of Rs. 1,71,068.28 remained pending with the respondent Bank. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank enclosing a proceeding of the Board of Trustees contained in Memo No. 5670 dated 20.10.2003. It has been canvassed that as the rate of interest which under the earlier rules was a simple rate of interest, stood modified to a compound rate of interest and was made applicable with effect from 1.7.1983, hence the petitioner was found liable for payment 3 of a further sum of Rs. 1,59,095/- by way of interest and which has since been recovered from the leave encashment amount of the petitioner as also his other dues. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that out of the total amount of Rs. 1,71,068.28 the respondents have made payment of the balance amount but have recovered the amount of Rs. 1,59,095/- and which is payable to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having superannuated with effect from 31.7.2003 and his advances having been adjusted against the dues receivable by him from the respondent Bank, there was a cessation of the master-servant relationship between him and the Bank and in which view the impugned action was unsustainable. He further submits that the advances were governed by the rules in force which prescribed for a simple rate of interest. He submits that the said rule having been modified on 20.10.2003 could not have been made effective retrospectively so as to cover even such advances which stood discharged prior to 20.10.2003. He thus submits that in any view of the matter, the action of the respondents is unsustainable in withholding the claims of the 4 petitioner. Learned counsel for the Bank supports the impugned action taken in the light of the proceedings of the Board of Trustees and submits that the recovery was in accordance with the modified rules. Mr. Ram Shankar Pradhan, learned Senior counsel representing the Employees Provident Fund Organization and its authorities submits that although the initial provident fund rules, copy whereof is placed at Annexure-C/1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, was approved by the statutory authorities but the modified rules invoked on 20.10.2003 with effect from 1.7.1983, has not yet received the statutory approval of the respondent authorities under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. He submits that a similar issue came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 17960 of 2009 and other analogous cases and which has been disposed of by an order dated 29.01.2010 holding that the modified rules until it found the approval of the statutory authority under the Employees Provident Fund and 5 Miscellaneous Provisions Act, could not be made enforceable and the compound interest so being charged was without sanction of law. Having considered the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in the backdrop of the judicial pronouncement referred to above, the action of the respondent authorities cannot be sustained. The concerned authorities of the respondent Bank are directed to remit the amount of Rs. 1,59,095/- to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. High Court, Patna Dated 20th April, 2010 S.Sb/-A.F.R. (Jyoti Saran, J.)