SHYAM CHANDRA SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN pursuance of order dated 11.5.2001, Accountant General himself has appeared and explained the problem being faced with respect to the balance transfer of G.P.F. amount while being maintained by his office prior to 1981 -82. However, he has produced the authority issued by the Assistant Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Finance Department, Governemnt of Bihar for payment of the provident fund amount as found payable for the period April, 1955 to November, 1970. The said authority is addressed to the Treasury Officer, Sichai Bhavan. From the said authority, it appears that the petitioner has been paid statutory interest only till June, 1991 i.e. for six months after the date of his retirement. It is sumitted by the Accountant General that he has been informed by the Director, Provident Fund that the application for withdrawal of G.P.F. amount was filed by the petitioner only in July, 2000. As such, he has been paid interest only for the period six months after his retirement. The Director, Provident Fund has been made Respondent no. 3 in the present writ petition. No counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf.

(2.) THIS Court fails to appreciate as to how the statutory interest has been calculated only upto June, 1991. This Court has repeatedly held that under the Pension Rules /Government Instructions the responsibility to get necessary formalities with respect to retiral dues comleted is of the sanctioning authority and if no step has been taken by the sanctioning authority in that direction the pensioner cannot be deprived of up -to -date statutory interest of the G.P.F. amount which remained in the account of State. It is really unfortunate that the authorities are causing delay in disposal of such claim. It is expected that the account of provident fund are maintained in the concerned offices of the State Government and they have to simply complete the necessary calculation work and issue authority slip for the amount, but this Court is constrained to say that it is hardly done in any case which has unnecessarily increased the number of pendency of the matter before this Court for such petty claims. If the authorities of the State do not discharge their responsibility, this Court does not find any justification to keep the pensioner deprived of up -to -date statutory interest, on G.P.F. particularly when the amount payable to the pensioner remained in the account of the State.