IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1632 of 2010 SHASHINATH JHA S/O LATE DINANATH JHA R/O VILL BANGAON,P.S.BANGAON , AND DISTT- SAHARSA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COLLECTOR SUPAUL 3. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TRIVENIGANJ UNDER THE DISTT-SUPAUL ----------- 09. 29.07.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure-1) rejecting his representation filed by him pursuant to the order dated 14.05.2010 in C.W.J.C. No. 17348 of 2008 vide Annexure- A to the counter affidavit. The representation of the petitioner disposed of by disallowing the claim for pension, gratuity, leave encashment and also arrears of salary for the period 03.12.1997 to 30.04.1998 on account of his dismissal from the service for the embezzlement of government money for Rs. 80,535.87 paisa in department as per order contained in memo no. 560 dated 03.11.1997 vide Annexure- D/1 to the counter affidavit. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal through another writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 3303 of 2000 which has been admitted and pending for final hearing as stated in paragraph -5 of the writ 2 application. The provident fund dues payable to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 64,887 was adjusted against the aforesaid embezzled amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the petitioner is dismissed from service after department enquiry on account of the alleged embezzlement which has been challenged by him through another writ petition as noticed above, the provident fund dues in his GPF account could not be withheld/adjusted against any dues of the government. Learned counsel for the State submits that the provident fund dues in the GPF account of the petitioner was accumulated from the deductions made from the monthly pay of the petitioner and as such, the same my be adjusted against dues of the government in light of the Rule 168 of the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules which provides for recovery of the government money from the pay and since the amount accumulated in the GPF account is also a part of the pay, the adjustment is valid and justified. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has been dismissed from the service for embezzlement of government money as per order as contained in Annexure- D/1, the same has been assailed by him through a writ petition as noticed in the foregoing paragraph. 3 Considering the above, in my opinion, the entitlement of the petitioner for pension, gratuity, leave encashment and arrears of salary for the period after his dismissal from service as claimed by him may not payable for the present on account of his dismissal from service, the payment of provident fund dues is, however, not liable to be adjusted against any dues of the government. The submission of the learned counsel for the State that the deductions from the salary of the petitioner as deposited in the GPF account be treated as a part of the pay and as such, liable to be adjusted is not sustainable in law in absence of any provision of law in support of such stand of the State. The amount deducted from the salary of an employee and deposited in the GPF account takes the character of a provident fund distinct from the character of pay. The Apex Court in the case of Gorakhpur University & Ors. Versus Shitla Prasad Nagendra & Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 2433 held that provident fund which is rendered immune from attachment and deductions or adjustment as against any other dues from the employee. In light of the discussions made above, the respondent no. 2, the Collector, Supaul is hereby directed to refund the provident fund dues of the petitioner with permissible interest expeditiously, 4 preferably within a period of three months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. The writ application stand disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)