IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.84 of 2011 Manorma Devi Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. ---------------------------------- 7 19.10.2011 Heard Mr. Ghanshyam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned G.P.8 for the opposite parties. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents including the District Provident Fund Officer, Jehanabad to provide a calculation chart for the period 1967-68 until the death of the husband of the petitioner on 31.01.1979 demonstrating the calculation of deductions as well as the interest accrued thereon. A further direction was issued to the District Provident Fund Officer, Jehanabad to process the claim of the petitioner on an average basis in case of their being any difficulty in ascertaining the deductions for the period in question. During the pendency of the writ proceedings an amount of Rs. 8,207/- was paid to the petitioner towards part payment of her claim in respect of the provident fund in question. As the order passed in the writ proceeding was not complied with, the present contempt application was filed in which show cause and a supplementary show case was filed on behalf of the opposite party No.4, the District Provident Fund Officer, Jehanabad enclosing the details of the calculation of provident fund for the period in question. The respondents while explaining the payments made to the petitioner, had taken up a stand that the petitioner was not entitled for interest for the delayed period. The respondent had relied upon certain Circulars of the State Government as regarding payment of interest on 2 belated furnishing of withdrawal form and which provided for interest up to a period of six months from the date the same became due. A further stand was taken that the matter was pending consideration in a matter arising out of L.P.A. No. 1316 of 2002. As the L.P.A. No. 1316 of 2002 had since been disposed of, this Court while recording its order on 24.08.2011, required the Director Provident Fund, respondent No.3 to examine the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest for the gap period in the light of the Division Bench judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 1316 of 2002. A supplementary show cause has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, the Director, Provident Fund enclosing a reasoned order dated 11.10.2011 whereunder although the respondents have found the petitioner entitled for payment of statutory interest for the period 31.01.1979 until July, 1979 and from 12.05.1980 i.e. the date on which the petitioner had filed the form for final withdrawal of the provident fund until the date of its payment but the claim of the petitioner for interest for the period July 1979 until the filing of the withdrawal form on 12.05.1980, has been rejected in the backdrop of the statutory Circulars. Learned counsel for the petitioner while controverting the stand taken by the Director, Provident Fund submits that the same is in the teeth of judicial pronouncement rendered in the appeals arising from L.P.A. No. 1316 of 2002 and other analogous cases. A perusal of the show cause filed on behalf of the Director, Provident Fund, manifests that a further amount of Rs. 21,059/- 3 towards interest for the period May, 1980 until the date of payment was made over to the petitioner however the claim of the petitioner for interest for the period July 1979 to May 1980 stands rejected by the impugned order. Considering that the claim of the petitioner for payment of provident fund amount and interest has since been considered and disposed of by the order dated 11.10.2011 placed at Annexure-A of the show cause filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 whereby the Joint Commissioner, Accounts Administration, Provident Fund Department after considering the claim of the petitioner in the back drop of the Circulars and the judicial pronouncement on the issue and even while admitting the entitlement of the petitioner for interest for the period May 1980 to the date of payment, has rejected the claim of the petitioner for interest for the period July 1979 to May, 1980, this Court is of the opinion that no case for contempt survives and the present application is disposed of but not before reserving liberty to the petitioner if so advised, to question the order dated 11.10.2011 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Accounts Administration, Provident Fund Department, placed at Annexure-A of the show cause filed today by filing an appropriate application before an appropriate forum. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)