HIRA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR WITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents of the respective cases.

(2.) THESE cases have been taken up in a batch, as, in response to a notice by the Court, respective learned counsel for the petitioners have filed slips claiming that in their respective writ applications petitioners are raising grievance only in respect of non -payment or only part payment of G.P.F. amount to them or to the deceased Government servant whose beneficiaries they claim themselves to be. In some cases they also claim that statutory interest payable on the amount of G.P.F. paid has not been correctly calculated at the rate prescribed and/or for the entire period admissible. However, except for the claim in respect of G.P.F. as indicated above, no other grievance in respect of calculation and payment of retiral dues under any head and/or revision thereof and payment of arrears have been raised by the petitioners in any of the writ applications being taken up in this batch and it is admitted by the respective learned counsel for the respective petitioners that the petitioners are satisfied with the settlement of the claims of retiral dues by the respondents under all other heads of entitlement. So far as G.P.F. is concerned, it is an admitted position that, after setting up of a separate Directorate under the Department of Finance of the State Govt., the function of maintaining the Fund and authorization of the amount becoming due lies on the officers of the Directorate. At the district level, the responsibility in law in this regard lies on the District Provident Fund Officer. Therefore in each writ application the respective District Provident Fund Officer has been made party respondent, besides the Director, Provident Fund, as the grievances of the petitioners directly relatable to the inaction or wrong action on the part of the respective District Provident Fund Officer.

(3.) IT is not the case of respondents in respect of any of the writ application that the G.P.F. amount or up to date statutory interest thereon is not payable to the petitioners. In cases in which counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents, their defence is that the due amount of G.P.F. has been paid with correctly calculated statutory interest payable on that, which assertion of fact has been vehemently denied by the petitioners. In some cases respondents have claimed that payment under this head has not been released in favour of the respective Government employee or his beneficiary for want of certain information from the petitioners.