INDRA BAHADUR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant retired on 31 August 2011 from the post of Meth in the Irrigation Department. On 18 May 2012, after retirement of the appellant, a cheque in the amount of Rs.3,06,052/- was paid over to him. The cheque was however drawn in the name of "Indra Bahadur" whereas the correct name of the appellant as in the service record was Indra Bahadur Srivastava. The cheque was returned back by the treasury. Subsequently, on 5 June 2012, the appellant moved an application for the issuance of a fresh cheque in the correct name of the appellant. Eventually on 22 August 2012, a cheque was issued to the appellant in the amount of Rs.3,06,052/-.

(2.) The appellant claimed interest for the delay of eleven months and twenty five days. But his request was not considered. Thereafter, in pursuance of an order passed in an earlier writ petition, the second respondent rejected the claim on 30 April 2013 which led to the filing of a writ petition for claiming interest. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the delay in payment of the provident fund dues of the appellant was not willful.

(3.) The order of the Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department dated 30 April 2013 indicates the factual position. Initially only 90% of the provident fund amount was sought to be released in favour of the appellant. However, subsequently, the competent authority realized that a class-IV employee was entitled to the release of the entire provident fund dues and it was not permissible to withhold a part of the amount. Subsequently, a cheque was issued to the appellant but that was not in the correct name as borne out by the service record. The appellant was required to pursue the matter when the cheque was returned and it was only thereafter that a fresh cheque was issued. In this process a period of eleven months and twenty five days, admittedly, elapsed.