Letters Patent Appeal No.1138 OF 2002 ************** Against the Judgment and Order dated 11th September, 2002 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh in C.W.J.C. No.5338 of 2002. -------- DR.UDAY PRATAP SINGH--------------------------------(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS-----------------------(Respondents) ---------- For the Appellant: Mr. Gyanand Roy, Advocate For the Respondent: Standing Counsel No.12 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD Barin Glhosh & C.M. Prasad, JJ. The appellant was permitted to work beyond the date of his superannuation. During the period appellant worked after his superannuation and until he was actually released, General Provident Fund was deducted from his salary and kept to his credit. After the appellant was released, his terminal dues were calculated and interest on the amount deducted on account of G.P.F. for the period appellant worked beyond the age of superannuation was paid to him calculated at the rate as applicable to G.P.F. accounts. Subsequently, the same was directed to be recovered only on the ground that the appellant 2 was not entitled to serve beyond the age of his superannuation and accordingly, no contribution could be made by him towards G.P.F. beyond the period of his superannuation and as such he was not also entitled to interest thereon. This contention having been unsuccessfully challenged in the writ petition, the present appeal has been filed. It is true that the appellant having had reached the age of superannuation could not in the normal circumstances contribute anything to G.P.F. any further, but the fact remains that such contribution was forced upon the appellant by deduction at source and not only that the amount so deducted was credited in the G.P.F. account of the appellant. Unless rules pertaining to G.P.F. accounts restrained, payment of interest thereon for the contributions thus made during the period subsequent to superannuation, the appellant, in view of the governing rules, became entitled to interest on the amount lying to his credit in his G.P.F. account for each and every day the same remained in his provident fund account until payment thereof. No such rule was brought to our notice. In the circumstances, the refund, as was sought for, is not sustainable. 3 In the circumstances the appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Order under appeal is set aside and at the same time the writ petition is allowed by quashing the order dated 20th March, 2002, as modified by the order dated 9th July, 2002 seeking refund of such interest amount of Rs.23,123/- (Twenty three thousand one hundred and twenty three). Patna High Court, The 12th September, 2008, N.A.F.R./Mkr. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.)