The petitioner is the widow of Late Bhagat Prasad, who sought voluntary retirement on 1.5.1993 while working as Headmaster, Government Middle School, Laxmipur Laukhan, Anchal Ghorsahan, in the district of East Champaran and ultimately died on 30th October, 1997.
2. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner made all efforts to persuade the respondent-authorities to make payment of his provident fund dues, but the respondents-authorities have not paid the same to her husband while he was alive or to the petitioner, which compelled her to file the present writ petition.
3. The petitioner claims to be the nominee of her deceased husband and is entitled to receive the provident fund amount.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Provident Fund Officer, Motihari (respondent no. 5) in which it is stated that the District superintendent of Education, Motihari has not sent application for final withdrawal to this respondent. It is further stated that a letter was sent to the District Superintendent of Education for sending application for final withdrawal and balance up to 1985-1986. The said respondent has, thus, shown helplessness in authorising the amount of G.P.F in the absence of balance standing at the credit of the subscriber upto 1985-1986 and the application for final withdrawal in the prescribed form duly filled in and signed by the head of the office and countersigned by the District Superintendent of Education under rule 529 of the Bihar Treasury Code Volume I.
5. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran and the District Superintendent of Education, West Champaran (respondents no. 3 and 4 respectively). In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 it is stated that the petitioner's husband never submitted the application in the prescribed proforma for the payment of G.P.F till his death on 30th October, 1997. It is also submitted that his wife, who is the sole claimant of the deceased, submitted the claim on 9.11.1999 in the prescribed proforma. After the receipt of the claim, the process for payment was started and it took almost four and a half months to finalise the claim of the widow even from the said date, pursuant to which a demand draft dated 28.3.2000 has been produced.
6. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 it appears that it is only after the filing of his writ petition that steps have been taken for payment of the said dues. It is stated that the delay was caused due to non-availability of the certified copy of the service book of Late Prasad, which was provided by respondent no. 3 on 10th March, 2000 and consequently, he sent the G.P.F statement on 11.3.2000 for necessary payment. According to the respondent no. 4, the respondent no. 3 has to make payment of provident fund of the husband of the petitioner.
7. It appears from the calculation chart produced by the learned Standing Counsel No. III appearing for the said respondent that the statutory interest has been calculated only up to October, 1993 and for the period November, 1999 to March, 2000, no amount of interest has been paid on the G.P.F for the period November, 1993 to October, 1999. It has been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the statutory interest for the remaining period has not been paid as the application for withdrawal of G.P.F amount in the prescribed form was submitted in November, 1999. The respondents have not denied the fact that the representation was made by the deceased on 17.3.1994
8. This Court finds it difficult to accept the submission of the learned Standing Counsel. He has not been able to show any rule under which a person can be deprived of the statutory interest for the period the G.P.F amount has been retained by the State authorities.
9. It has been stated in the writ petition that the husband of the petitioner made all efforts to persuade the respondent-authorities to make payment of his provident fund dues. It is also stated that the petitioner submitted her last representation on 24.7.1998 to respondent no. 3 and on 11.11.1998 to respondent no. 4 for taking steps for payment of the provident fund dues. The said statement has been answered in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 in which it is vaguely stated that the said statement is not correct as the petitioner and her husband Late Prasad never submitted his application in the prescribed proforma before 1997. The fact that the last representation was submitted by the petitioner on 24.7.1998 and 11.11.1998 made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition has been answered in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 in which it is stated that the petitioner was asked to submit her proper and prescribed application for G.P.F payment. No documentary evidence in support thereof has been brought on record by the respondents showing that the petitioner or her husband was ever informed for completing the necessary formalities for release of the provident fund amount. From the prescribed proforma for release of the provident fund, it is evident that after the death of the subscriber, it is the responsibility of the head of the office from where the person retires to fill up the required form and refer the same to the Head of the Department and shall also inform the Accountant General about the death of the subscriber and his provident fund account number without any delay. The Accountant General is required to advice the Head of the Department as to what further action should be taken. The relevant portion from the prescribed form is quoted hereunder:—
10. Thus, it is evident that it was the responsibility of the head of the office to get the necessary formalities completed and forwarded to the concerned authority for release of the provident fund amount. It has not been shown in any of the counter affidavits that any such step was promptly taken by the head of the office and that despite necessary steps taken by the head of the office, there was any negligence on the part of the petitioner.
11. This Court, from the experience gathered while hearing writ petitions relating to retirement benefits, has found that almost in all cases unless some coercive steps are taken, the death-cum-retiral dues are not released by the respondent-authorities. In the present case, earlier a counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3, in which a plea was taken that the matter was pending before the Special Secretary-cum-Joint Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education, Bihar, Patna for approval. The Special Secretary was made party, vide order dated 16.3.2000, and on the request of the State counsel, the matter was adjourned to 24th March, 2000, when the Special Secretary was directed to appear and file an affidavit explaining as to what action was taken by him in response to the letter dated 31.12.1999 of the District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran, contained in Annexure B to the said counter affidavit.
12. It may be mentioned here that in the said Annexure B, the District Superintendent of Education while dealing the case of the petitioner for payment of provident fund amount with interest, made a reference about the pendency of the present writ petition, yet the Special Secretary also did not take any initiative to expedite the matter until the said order dated 16.3.2000 was passed. However, this Court, vide order dated 24.3.2000, granted one more indulgence by adjourning the matter to the next appointed date when it was directed to be listed at the top of the list so that necessary cheque/draft for payment of the entire provident fund amount with up-to-date statutory interest and the calculation chart shall be produced by the District Provident Fund Officer, East Champaran personally before this Court.
13. Pursuant to the said order the District Provident Fund Officer, East Champaran has appeared and produced the said draft, but has not calculated statutory interest up-to-date and tried to take the aforementioned plea of non-filing of the application in the prescribed form by the petitioner before November, 1999.
14. This Court fails to appreciate the said attitude of the District Provident Fund Officer (respondent no. 5). Despite the said order he has not calculated the up-to-date statutory interest and included the said amount of interest in the demand draft produced today by him. This Court is unable to accept the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel that in the facts and circumstances aforementioned, the petitioner is not entitled for statutory interest for the remaining aforementioned period, specially in the absence of any such stand that the concerned authority had taken all necessary steps as per the aforementioned provision contained in the prescribed form. Moreover, the due amount was kept withheld by the authorities of the State and, under such circumstances, in my opinion, there cannot be any justification to deny the interest for the said period. In any view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances aforementioned, it is a fit case where the petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased employee, deserves to be awarded with heavy penal interest and cost, specially when despite the order of this Court to produce cheque/draft for payment of entire provident fund amount with up-to-date statutory interest, the same has not been complied by respondent no. 5.
15. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand), which shall be paid by the District Provident Fund Officer, East Champaran (Respondent no. 5) from his own pocket to the petitioner within two weeks. The respondents are directed to pay penal interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the entire amount of G.P.F from due date till the payment is made within two weeks from today. The amount of penal interest shall be calculated and paid after making adjustment of the statutory interest already paid. The amount of penal interest should be recovered from the pocket of the persons) found responsible for causing the delay of seven long years.
16. The Bank draft produced today is being handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent no. 5 is directed to hand over the photo copy of the calculation chart produced today to the learned counsel for the petitioner in course of the day.
17. The petitioner, if feels aggrieved by the said calculation, may file further claim in detail before the respondent no. 5, who shall consider the same and dispose it of by a reasoned order within two weeks of its receipt.
Comments