BALESHWAR PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Let the Director, Provident Fund, as well as the concerned District Provident Fund Officer be made as party respondents in this writ application.

(2.) This is one of the unfortunate cases which shows the callous and mala fide attitude on the part of the State respondents in paying to G.P.F. amount to the petitioner who has retired from service on 30-11-87 as Head Master from the Middle School. It is submitted that the G.P.F. amount to the tune of Rs. 18,245.90 has not been paid to the petitioner as yet in spite of the repeated representations filed on his behalf. It is further submitted that no proceeding either departmental or judicial was ever initiated and/or pending against the petitioner. In this case, neither any one appears on behalf of the State-respondent nor any counter-affidavit has been filed on its behalf and as such, this writ application is being disposed of on the basis of the averments made therein. However, the learned Counsel on behalf of the A.G. Bihar is present. As stated above, the petitioner retired as Head Master as far back as on 30-11-87 and despite of his best efforts, G.P.F. amount to the tune of Rs. 18,245.90 has not been paid as yet.

(3.) Accordingly, I direct the State-respondent particularly the Director, Provident Fund as well as the District Provident Officer, Patna to pay all the G.P.F. amounts legally payable to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Regard being had to the fact that the petitioner had retired in 1987 and even hard earned money which is legally payable has not been paid he is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of payment along with the cost assessed at Rs. 1,000.00 apart from the statutory interest payable to the petitioner in accordance with law. Both the amount of interest and cost shall be paid to the petitioner, along with the principal amount, within the time aforesaid. It is made clear that the respondent State, if so advised, may realise the amount of interest arid cost from the person/s found responsible for delaying the payment.