Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

State Of Bihar v. Ram Pavitra Singh

Patna High Court

Mar 3, 2010

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Court heard two Letters Patent Appeals (L.P.A. No. 1316/2002 and L.P.A. No. 243/2010) together because a common question arose regarding whether the State and its officials are bound to pay up-to-date statutory interest on General Provident Fund (G.P.F.) accumulations until actual payment.

L.P.A. No. 1316/2002 arises from an order dated 29.11.2002 in C.W.J.C. No. 10410/2002 directing payment of statutory interest on the G.P.F. amount of the respondent-writ petitioner, Ram Pavitra Singh. The respondent had retired while holding the post of Assistant Teacher; the opinion records his date of retirement as 31.3.1989 and the Single Judge's direction ordered interest from 1.4.1989 to 14.11.2002. The appellants (State of Bihar and officials) contended that the respondent filed an application for withdrawal only in 2002 and the payment authorization issued 14.11.2002 included interest only up to 30.9.1989 (six months) in terms of Rule 14(4) of the Bihar G.P.F. Rules.

The Court examined documentary evidence (including an application alleged to have been filed on 6.7.1989, annexed as Annexure-1 to the memo of appeal) and the contents of counter-affidavits. The District Superintendent of Education's counter affidavit did not assert delayed filing, whereas a counter affidavit filed by the District Provident Fund Officer stated the application was received on 14.11.2002.

L.P.A. No. 243/2010 concerns the widow of late Sagar Mahto, who died on 9.8.1992 while serving as Assistant Teacher. The widow (Sudha Kumari) filed a writ petition on 6.12.2004 for provident fund dues and leave encashment. The District Provident Fund Officer authorized payment on 23.7.2005 of Rs. 54,472/-, which included interest only for the period August 1992 to January 1993 (on the ground that interest was payable for six months only). The writ petition and subsequent review proceedings led to earlier judicial directions to clarify and compute unpaid amounts (including alleged omissions for 1974–1986) and this appeal challenges the refusal to award statutory interest beyond the limited interest paid earlier.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the State and its officials are bound to pay up-to-date statutory interest on the accumulation in an employee's General Provident Fund account up to the date of actual payment, where delay in payment is attributable to administrative lapses.
Whether an employee's delay in filing an application for final withdrawal of G.P.F. defeats entitlement to interest beyond six months from retirement, in the presence of documentary evidence that the application was received by the appropriate office within six months.
In cases of death of a subscriber, whether nominees (e.g., the widow) are entitled to statutory interest on the G.P.F. from the date of death to the date of actual payment where lapses by the authorities prevented timely payment.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants (State of Bihar and officials) — L.P.A. No. 1316/2002

The respondent filed his application for withdrawal only on 31.10.2002; an authorization for payment was issued on 14.11.2002 with interest calculated only up to 30.9.1989 (six months from retirement) under Rule 14(4) of the Bihar G.P.F. Rules.
There was no laches on the part of State officials because the respondent delayed filing his application for 13 years; therefore the State should not be liable to pay interest beyond six months from the date of retirement in terms of the Pension/G.P.F. Rules.

Respondent (Ram Pavitra Singh) — L.P.A. No. 1316/2002

The respondent contended the application for final withdrawal was in fact received by the District Superintendent of Education within six months of retirement (on 6.7.1989) and that the appellants produced a different document before this Court that was not placed before the Single Judge.
The respondent relied on Annexure-1 (the application) and endorsements/certificates (including a certificate by the Block Education Extension Officer dated 31.10.2002) to show the application bore the date 6.7.1989 and that subsequent delays were attributable to administrative inaction.

Respondent (Widow, Sudha Kumari) — L.P.A. No. 243/2010

The widow asserted she was not paid the full provident fund of her deceased husband and sought payment of the provident fund dues together with statutory interest from the date of the husband’s death until actual payment.
She relied on the fact that she had not been at fault (no laches) and that the controlling authorities failed to make full payment; therefore interest ought to be paid for the period for which payment was delayed due to administrative lapses.

Respondents (District Provident Fund Officer / District Superintendent of Education) — L.P.A. No. 243/2010

The District Provident Fund Officer's position (as reflected in the counter affidavit) was that payment of Rs. 54,472/- was authorized on 23.7.2005 and that interest was calculated only for the six months period (August 1992 to January 1993) in terms of the G.P.F. Rules providing interest for six months.
There was an absence in some affidavits of a clear account for the period 1974–1986, which the Court found unsatisfactory and directed preparation of records and calculation of liabilities.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bidya Devi v. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2001 (1) PLJR 626	Earlier judgment dealing with payment of interest (in that case facts involved a deceased Government employee and the widow as claimant).	The Court expressly declined to adopt or approve the reasoning of that earlier order for purposes of the present appeals, observing the facts differ (the earlier case involved the death of the Government employee) and left the correctness of that judgment open for consideration in an appropriate future case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded carefully on the documentary record and the pleadings. Its reasoning differs for the two appeals but is guided by common legal principles about entitlement to statutory interest where administrative delay occurs.

L.P.A. No. 1316/2002 — step-by-step reasoning:

The Court scrutinised the counter-affidavits and the memorandum of appeal (including Annexure‑1). It noted the appellants did not annex Annexure‑1 to their counter-affidavit and the counter-affidavit by the District Provident Fund Officer asserted the application was received only on 14.11.2002.
The Court found, based on the application (Annexure‑1) and endorsements (including a certificate by the Block Education Extension Officer dated 31.10.2002), that the respondent's application for final withdrawal was in fact received in the office of the District Superintendent of Education on 6.7.1989.
Because the District Superintendent of Education (D.S.E.) consumed a period of about 13 years in forwarding the application, the appellants could not take shelter under Rule 14 of the Bihar G.P.F. Rules to deny interest beyond six months: administrative delay by authorities cannot be used to deprive the employee of interest where the application was timely received by the appropriate authority.
The Court observed that the State Government had repeatedly maintained that delay by the authority in making payment would not deprive the employee of interest, and it relied on a Finance Commissioner circular dated 5.3.2001 (which clarified an earlier circular dated 6.5.1988) to the effect that interest beyond six months will not be denied where the delay is due to administrative lapses; in such cases interest is payable up to the date of payment and any excess may be recovered from erring officials.
On these facts, the Court concluded the Single Judge's direction to pay up-to-date statutory interest from 1.4.1989 to 14.11.2002 was correct and did not suffer from error.
However, the Court modified the Single Judge's order to the extent that the impugned declaration holding the Finance Department circulars bad (for providing denial of interest after six months) was set aside: the Court held those circulars are, in normal circumstances, valid and conformable to Rule 14 insofar as incumbents are expected to file required pension and G.P.F. withdrawal papers at retirement (referring to Rule 189 of Bihar Pension Rules and Rule 29 and Annexure-A of the G.P.F. Rules).

L.P.A. No. 243/2010 — step-by-step reasoning:

The Court reviewed the history: the widow filed the writ petition in 2004; an authorization for partial payment (including limited interest) was made in 2005; earlier orders (including the order dated 27.2.2009) had required authorities to compute and pay outstanding amounts, notably there was silence in official affidavits about payments or calculations for the period 1974–1986.
The Court stressed the widow had no laches in pursuing the claim and that the authorities were at fault for failing to make full payment; the Court treated entitlement to the provident fund as including interest (the G.P.F. accumulation comprises principal and year-to-year interest), so a prayer for provident fund payment includes interest.
Relying on the same Finance Department circular framework discussed in the first appeal (5.3.2001), the Court concluded the widow was entitled to statutory interest on the provident fund from the date of her husband's death (August 1992) until payment, and further ordered that interest for the period 1974–1986 be paid from the date of entitlement (i.e., August 1992) until actual payment, while clarifying that the interest on the sum of Rs. 54,472/- paid earlier would be accounted only up to the date of its payment.

Holding and Implications

Holding (core rulings emphasized):

L.P.A. No. 1316/2002 — The appeal is disposed of subject to modifications; the respondent (Ram Pavitra Singh) is entitled to statutory interest on his G.P.F. accumulation from the date of retirement up to the date of actual payment.

L.P.A. No. 243/2010 — The appeal is disposed of; the widow (Sudha Kumari) is entitled to statutory interest on the G.P.F. accumulation of her deceased husband from the date of his death until the date of actual payment (with specified clarifications concerning amounts already paid).

Direct consequences and directives:

In L.P.A. No. 1316/2002 the Court directed payment of the statutory amount of interest on the G.P.F. accumulated to the respondent from the (textual) date of retirement (the opinion contains references to both 31.3.1989 and, in a later paragraph, 31.3.1979) to the date of its payment (14.11.2002) within three months from the date of the order, if not already paid. The interim order dated 8.9.2004 staying operation of the impugned order was vacated to that extent.
In L.P.A. No. 1316/2002 the Court set aside that portion of the Single Judge's order which declared the Finance Department circulars (dated 6.5.1988 and 5.3.2001) bad insofar as they purported to deny statutory interest after six months; the Court held those circulars are not, by themselves, unlawful and are consistent with Rule 14 in normal circumstances where retirees fail to file required papers at retirement.
In L.P.A. No. 243/2010 the Court modified the impugned order dismissing the review and directed respondents to pay statutory interest on the G.P.F. accumulation of the deceased husband from the date of death (August 1992) to the date of payment, and ordered that interest for the period 1974–1986 be paid from the date of entitlement (August 1992) until actual payment. The Court directed payment within three months from receipt/production of a copy of the order.

Broader implications:

The Court decided these appeals on their particular facts and outcomes were driven by factual findings (notably the documented date of filing/receipt of the withdrawal application and the absence of laches by claimants). The Court did not lay down a new general precedent altering Rule 14 or the circulars; rather, it clarified that where administrative delay is shown and the application was received in time, statutory interest up to payment must be paid and the circulars remain valid in ordinary circumstances. The Court expressly declined to adopt or endorse the reasoning of the earlier case Bidya Devi (2001 (1) PLJR 626) for purposes of these appeals and left its correctness open for future consideration.

Relief and Compliance

Both successful claimants (in their respective appeals) were directed to be paid statutory interest for the relevant periods up to actual payment, subject to the clarifications noted above.
Payment directives were to be complied with within three months from the date of the Court’s order (or on production/receipt of a copy of the order, as specified in L.P.A. No. 243/2010), if not already paid.

Notes on Record and Documentary Findings

The Court relied heavily on documentary endorsements and the contents (or omissions) of counter-affidavits. A critical factual finding in L.P.A. No. 1316/2002 was that Annexure‑1 showed the application was received on 6.7.1989 by the District Superintendent of Education, and the subsequent delay in forwarding was attributable to administrative inaction rather than the petitioner’s laches. The Court noted inconsistencies in the appellants’ stated position in the counter-affidavit and the records before the appellate court.

Absent or Limited Information

The opinion did not set aside or quash the Finance Department circulars as a general rule; it declined to adjudicate the broader correctness of an earlier judicial decision (Bidya Devi) and left that question open. The opinion contains factual and documentary specifics relied upon by the Court; the summary above is restricted to and derived exclusively from those materials contained in the opinion.

Show all summary ...

As per Mihir Kumar Jha, J.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. In both the appeals, which have been heard together, a common question arises for consideration, namely, as to whether the State and its officials are bound to pay up-to-date statutory interest on accumulation of the amount of an employee under General Provident Fund till the date of its actual payment.

L.P.A No. 1316/2002

3. L.P.A No. 1316/2002 in fact arises out of an order dated 29.11.2002 in C.W.J.C No. 10410/2002 whereby and whereunder a direction was issued for payment of statutory interest on the amount of provident fund of the respondent writ petitioner Ram Pavitra Singh, who had retired from service while holding the post of Assistant Teacher on 31.3.1989

4. It is the case of the appellants State of Bihar and its officials that though the respondent writ petitioner had retired on 31.3.1989 but he had filed his application for withdrawal of the G.P.F amount only on 31.10.2002 and as such, an authorization for payment of G.P.F amount was issued on 14.11.2002 alongwith the interest calculated for the period upto 30.9.1989 i.e for a period of six months from the date of his retirement in terms of Rule 14(4) of the Bihar General Provident Fund Rules 1946 hereinafter referred to as G.P.F Rules.

5. Counsel for the appellants in this context has also contended that in the present case there was no lache or lapse on the part of the officials of the State, inasmuch as the respondent writ petitioner was required to file an application for final withdrawal of his amount of G.P.F and when he himself had delayed it over a period of 13 years and had filed the same only on 14.11.2002 it cannot be said that the State would also be liable to pay interest beyond a period of six months from the date of retirement in terms of the Pension Rules.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner has submitted that it is not correct to say that the application for withdrawal of G.P.F amount was filed by writ petitioner on 14.11.2002 and in fact the appellants have tried to make out a new case before this appellate Court by producing a document which was not placed before the learned Single Judge in the counter affidavit filed by the appellants. In this context he has drawn our attention to that very application of the respondent writ petitioner showing that such application for a final withdrawal of his G.P.F amount was received in the office of the District Superintendent of Education well within six months from the date of his retirement i.e on 6.7.1989

7. This Court on a close perusal of the materials on record including the counter affidavit filed by the appellants in the connected writ application would find that neither the respondents had annexed the document, as contained in Annexure 1 to the Memo of Appeal, the application filed by the respondent writ petitioner for final withdrawal of G.P.F amount nor any firm date of filing of such application was mentioned in such counter affidavit. In this context the only relevant paragraph of the counter affidavit reads as follows:-

“7. That in this case petitioner had not filed his application within six months after his retirement rather in fact on the application date has not been given by the petitioner and the application of petitioner was received in the office of this deponent on 14.11.2002 and the same day the authority slip was issued by this deponent.”

8. Such counter affidavit was also filed by the District Provident Fund Officer and not by the District Superintendent of Education, Patna, who was the controlling authority of the petitioner before whom the Respondent writ petitioner as per G.P.F Rules was required to file his application for final withdrawal and had also done so as is now apparent from the copy of Annexure-1 to this memo of appeal. In fact in the separate counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Superintendent of Education no such plea of delayed filing of the application for final withdrawal of the G.P.F was mentioned therein.

9. Consequently when this Court has found that the said application for final withdrawal filed by the respondent writ petitioner was received in the office of the District Superintendent of Education on 6.7.1989, if the said authority had consumed a period of 13 years in forwarding his application, the same cannot enure to the benefit of the appellants by seeking protection under Rule 14 of the Bihar G.P.F Rules, 1948. It has to be noted here that the writ application of the respondent writ petitioner claiming payment of G.P.F with up-to-date interest was filed on 13.9.2002 and only thereafter the D.S.E woke up from his slumber and had forwarded the same to the District Provident Fund Officer On 14.11.2002 This part of the finding of this Court that the application of the respondent writ petitioner in fact was received in the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Patna on 6.7.1989 gets further confirmed from the endorsement made by the Block Education Extension Officer, who on its being sent to him in capacity of the head of the office had issued a certificate on 31.10.2002 that in the last 12 months the respondent writ petitioner was not sanctioned any advance from his G.P.F account. If the plea of the appellants as projected in the appeal is accepted that the respondent writ petitioner had filed his application on 31.10.2002 there could have been no mention of the date 6.7.1989 on the top of the application and thus, it becomes absolutely clear that only after filing of the writ application On 13.9.2002, the Block Education Extension Officer, Pandarak had put his signature on the said application and thereafter the D.S.E, Patna on 14.11.2002 had recommended for payment to the District Provident Fund Officer, Patna whereafter only such payment was ultimately made by the District Provident Fund Officer on 14.11.2002

10. In the factual premises of this case there would be no need to go into the question of interpretation of Rule 14 of the G.P.F Rules or to the circulars dated 9.5.1988 and 5.3.2001, inasmuch as the State Government has repeatedly insisted that the delay by the authority in making payment of provident fund would not deprive the employee in getting the benefit of payment of interest. This aspect of the matter in fact has been clarified by the Finance Commissioner of The State of Bihar in his circular dated 5.3.2001 while explaining the scope of the earlier circular dated 6th May, 1988 on the subject wherein it has been clearly stipulated that the interest beyond a period of six months will not be paid only in such case where the application was filed after a period of six months. In this context from the reading of the circular dated 5.3.2001 it is quite explicit that if after receipt of the application for final withdrawal of G.P.F the delay in payment is on account of administrative lapses on the part of the Drawing and Disbursing/sanctioning authority, the interest will be paid upto the date of payment and the amount of interest paid in excess of the period of six months will be recovered from the concerned erring officials.

11. Thus, on the facts of this case we are satisfied that the direction of the learned Single Judge in his order to pay up-to-date statutory interest i.e from 1.4.1989 to 14.11.2002 does not suffer from any error.

12. We, however, having decided this case on its facts would modify the impugned order to the extent that neither of the two circulars of the Finance Department being notification dated 6 May, 1988 (Memo No. 3373) nor the subsequent clarificatory circular contained in the Finance Commissioner's letter dated 5.3.2001 (Annexures ‘B’ and ‘B/2’ to the counter affidavit) are bad in law or in fact by themselves provide denial of statutory interest for the period after expiry of six months of the retirement of the incumbent and till the date of filing of the application in all events. Both the aforesaid circulars infact are valid circulars under the normal circumstances and are inconformity with Rule 14 of the Bihar G.P.F Rules inasmuch as the incumbents at the time of their retirement are always expected to file not only their pension papers in prescribed proforma in terms of Rule 189 of Bihar Pension Rules but also their application for final withdrawal of G.P.F in terms of Rule 29 read with its Annexure-A in the prescribed proforma under G.P.F Rules.

13. It is also clarified that as this appeal has been decided in its own facts, and has upheld the conclusion arrived by the learned Single Judge directing payment of interest from the date of retirement to the date of payment to the Respondent writ petitioner, it would not be deemed that we have also approved the reasonings in the earlier order of this Court in the case of Bidya Devi… v. The State Of Bihar & Ors.…, reported in 2001 (1) PLJR 626, inasmuch as it is the case of the appellants themselves that the said judgment is not applicable to the instant case because in that case the Government employee had died and the widow of the employee had come to this Court. The question of correctness of the judgment in the case if Bidya Devi (supra), therefore, is left open and would be gone into, if needed in any other appropriate case.

14. We would accordingly for the reasons indicated above set aside the following portion of impugned order declaring that :

“Finance Department Circulars, contained in Annexure-B and B/2 are, thus, held to be bad in so far as they provide for denial of statutory interest for the period after expiry of six months of the retirement and till the date of filing of the application.”

15. There infact being no relief sought for quashing of the two circulars of the State Government dated 6.5.1988 (Annexure-B) and 5.3.2001 (Annexure-B/2) in the writ application nor any declaration sought to this effect therein, we find it difficult to sustain the aforesaid portion of the order.

16. Subject to our aforementioned observations and clarifications this appeal is disposed of with a direction to make payment of statutory amount of interest, on G.P.F accumulated to the respondent writ petitioner from the date of his retirement i.e 31.3.1979 to the date of its payment i.e 14.11.2002 within a period of three months from today, if not already paid to him earlier and to that extent the interim order dated 8.9.2004 passed in this appeal staying operation of the impugned order stands vacated.

L.P.A No. 243/2010

17. In L.P.A No. 243/2010 the widow of late Sagar Mahto being aggrieved by an order dated 18.11.2009 in Civil Review No. 127/2009 has filed this Letters Patent Appeal making a grievance that she had not been paid statutory interest over the amount of provident fund dues of her husband and her prayer to this effect was rejected by the impugned order.

18. The only relevant fact to be noted in this context is that on 6.12.2004 the appellant-petitioner Sudha Kumari being widow of Late Sagar Mahto had filed a writ petition for payment of provident fund dues and leave encashment payable to her deceased husband who had died in harness on 9.8.1992 while holding the post of Assistant Teacher. In the writ application it was her case that no amount of provident fund was paid to her. From the counter affidavit filed by the District Provident Fund Officer, Khagaria it appears that On 23.7.2005 she was authorized payment of Rs. 54,472/- which included interest only for the period August, 1992 to January, 1993 on the ground that under the G.P.F Rules she was entitled for payment of interest for six months only. This Court after noticing the aforementioned grievance by an order dated 27.2.2009 had disposed of the connected writ petition in the following terms:

“No doubt, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Superintendent of Education of Khagaria but surprisingly the same is silent on the issue of non-payment of GPF amount for the period 1974 to 1986. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Provident Fund Officer, Khagaria duly sworn on 20.1.2006 a statement of account giving the details of the calculation was brought out on records as Annexure A/1 but this calculation only starts from April, 1986 till the period 1993. The amount shown in the said chart stands paid which has also been acknowledged in the counter affidavit filed by the District Superintendent of Education. But there is still silence with regard to payment of GPF between 1974 to 1986. The Court is constraint to record that despite the affidavit of the District Superintendent of Education the matter has not been resolved. A direction is hereby issued upon the District Superintendent of Education as well as the District Provident Fund Officer that they shall take steps for preparing records of payment of GPF to the petitioner even for the period 1974 to 1986, work out the liability and make payment of the same within a period of three months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. The Court expects that the direction to be followed within the time frame since they have failed to file categorical affidavits in this regard despite the writ application pending since 2004 and several indulgence having been granted by the Court to state all the facts ion the counter affidavit.”

19. From the aforesaid order of this Court it would be clear that even on 27.2.2009 this Court was not satisfied with regard to full payment of amount of G.P.F of the deceased husband of the appellant writ petitioner, inasmuch as there was no calculation for the period 1974 to 1986. The appellant writ petitioner could not be held to be at fault for not maintaining month to month or year to year account of her husband of the amount of G.P.F and in fact when she had to run to the corridors of the Secretariat even for getting her legitimate amount of G.P.F it would be harsh for this Court to deny the payment of interest over such amount of G.P.F of her husband. It is not in doubt that the husband of the petitioner had entered in service in the year 1974 and was regularly contributing in the provident fund till the date of his death i.e August, 1992. In that view of the matter, if the appellant writ petitioner had sought a clarification by seeking review of the aforesaid order for also directing the respondents to make payment of statutory amount of interest over G.P.F accumulation of the husband, the same was well covered by the circular of the State Government dated 5.3.2001 discussed above in the earlier case of Ram Pavitra Singh. The lapses were clearly on the part of the controlling authorities of the husband of the appellant writ petitioner who did not make full payment of the amount of provident fund in terms of Rule 31 of G.P.F Rules which reads as follows:- “On the death of a subscriber before the amount standing to his credit has become payable, or where the amount has become payable before payment has been made.

(i) when the subscriber leaves a family-

(a) if a nomination made by the subscriber in accordance with the provisions of rule 8, or of the corresponding rule heretofore in force in favour of a member or members of his family subsist, the amount standing to his credit in the Fund or the part thereof to which the nomination relates shall become payable to his nominee or nominees in the proportion specified in the nomination.

(b) If no such nomination in favour of a member or members of the family of the subscriber, subsists, or if such nomination relates only to part of the amount standing to his credit in the Fund the whole amount or the part thereof to which the nomination does not relate, as the case may be, shall, not withstanding any nomination purporting to be in favour of any person or persons other than a member or members of his family, become payable to the members of his family in equal shares: Provided that no share shall be payable to-

(1) sons who have attained legal majority;

(2) sons of a deceased son who have attained legal majority;

(3) married daughters whose husbands are alive;

(4) married daughters of deceased son whose husbands are alive if there is any member of the family other than those specified in clauses (1), (2), (3) and (4); Provided further that the widow or widows and child or children of a deceased son shall receive between them in equal parts only the share which that son would have received if he had survived the subscriber and had been exempted from the provisions of clause(1) of first proviso.

(ii) When subscriber leaves no family, if a nomination made by him in accordance with the provisions of rule 8 of the corresponding rule heretofore in favour of any persons subsists, the amount standing to his credit in the Fund or the part thereof to which nomination relates, shall become payable to his nominees in the proportion specified in the nomination.”

20. The widow appellant writ petitioner being the nominee soonafter the death of her husband her claimed G.P.F amount of her husband and though other payments were made to her, but the amount of G.P.F in full was not paid to her. This Court accordingly would modify the impugned order dated 18.11.2009 dismissing the review application by giving a direction to the Respondents make payment of the statutory interest over the amount of provident fund from the date of death of her husband till the date of its actual payment. We would definitely clarify that the amount of interest on the sum of Rs. 54,472/- would be payable only till the date of its payment, whereas the amount of payment of interest over G.P.F accumulation of the husband of the appellant writ petitioner for the period 1974 to 1986 will be paid from the date of entitlement i.e August, 1992 till the date of its payment.

21. Let it be made clear that this Court while holding the appellant writ petitioner, the widow of Late Sagar Mahto for being entitled to receive payment of interest on the amount of G.P.F accumulation from the date of death of her husband to the date of its actual payment is basically guided by the fact that there was no laches on the part of the appellant writ petitioner, a fact which was never denied before the learned Single Judge either in the writ petition or in the review application. In that view of the matter, it would be really harsh for this Court to approve the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that the appellant writ petitioner in her prayer in the writ petition had not claimed the amount of interest while making a prayer for payment of the amount of provident fund of her husband. The provident fund accumulation is always in two parts, namely, principal contribution and the interest thereon earned from year to year and therefore, such prayer for payment of provident fund would itself include payment of interest as well.

22. That being so, this Court would direct the respondent to pay statutory interest over provident fund accumulation of the wife of the husband writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

23. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this appeal is also disposed of.