HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram:- Appellant Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ W.A.No.309/2009 Smt. Mankunwar Bai, Wd/o Late Shri Sitaram Gangwal, aged about 63 years, R/o Village Majalgondi, Post Pond, District Durg (CG) V^rsus Resoondents 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, DKS. Bhawan, Raipaur (CGO 2. The Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CGO 3. The Collector, District South Bastar Dantewada (CG) 4. The Assistant CommSssioner, Tribal Welfare, South Bastar, Dantewada (CG) 5. The Block Education OfRcer, Block Katekalyan, District South Bastar, Dantewada (CG) Writ appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Chhattlsaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Division Benchl Act. 2006 read with Section 158 (101 (B) ofthe Hiah Court ofChhattisaarh Rutes. 2007 Present: Shri Rakesh Anthony, counsel for the appellant. Shri UNS. Deo. G.A. forthe State. Shri K. Shakeel, counsel for respondent No.2. Oral Order (Passed on 18th of March. 2010) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 17.09.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.5151/2009, whereby the petitioner's claim of interest @ 18% for delay in disbursing provident fund claim of her late husband has been dismissed. (2) In the impugned order, considering the fact that the petitioner has been paid interest as per prevailing rates at the ,^3%^,.^ ^ reievant time learned Single Judge has dismissed the claim of 18% of commercial interest ofthe appellant. (3) From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the amount of provident fund was paid to the appellant in the month of February, 2009 i.e. almostafter a lapse of 15 years from the date of death of the employee/husband. No steps were taken by the concerned employee during his lifetime for disbursal of the provident fund. The instant writ petition was filed only after the amount was disbursed with interest at the prevailing rate at the relevant time in the month of February, 2009 claiming award of interest @ 18% per annum. (4) In our considered opinion, learned Single Judge was wtolly justified in rejecting the above claim of the appellant,as the appellant was granted interest by the Department at the prevailing market rate. l^ Priya (5) There is no substance in this appeal, which js accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge