M.K.RAINA Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was holding the post of Junior Engineer Grade-I under the State in Mechanical and Irrigation Construction Department when he superannuated on 30.06.2004. His case for grant of terminal benefits including the contribution made towards GP Fund together with bonus and interest, was submitted and processed as per the Rules. The then Executive Engineer Irrigation Division Jammu on 19.07.2004 submitted petitioner's case to Executive Engineer, MICD, Srinagar, where petitioner was working before migration.

(2.) It is contended that initially certain queries were raised by Executive Engineer, MICD, Srinagar, vis-A?-vis petitioner's case, forcing him to file writ petition, bearing SWP no. 1529/2004. This Court vide Order dated 28.04.2005 held that the objections raised were untenable and accordingly, respondent-State assured finalization of the pension case of the petitioner notwithstanding the objections raised within a period of four months. As a consequently, payment order for an amount of Rs.9,38,423/- was ordered to be issued. However, later on, respondent no.3 refused to pay interest and, therefore, payment order to the tune of Rs 8,66,649 /- was issued. Being aggrieved, petitioner represented his case. It is by virtue of impugned order that the interest on GP Fund has been refused. This has forced him to approach this Court with writ petition on hand seeking quashment of Order no.GPP/Mig/971-72 dated 14.06.2006 passed by respondent No.3, with a direction to respondents to pay interest which has accrued on the G.P. Fund at the statutory rate.

(3.) Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents wherein it is insisted that petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2004 and his GP fund case was processed by the Executive Engineer Irrigation, Division Jammu, on 19.07.2004. It is further averred that respondent no.3 received the case of the petitioner only on 10.04.2006, as such, he declared the claim of interest as time barred in view of the fact that the case for payment of GP Fund was not submitted within 06 months of the retirement of the employee. It is on the basis of such delay that the amount of interest claimed has been refused. Other ground taken by the respondents is that for having received the case of the petitioner after more than 06 months from the date of retirement, as such, in terms of Rule 20 of General Provident Fund Rules Svt. 1981 and the case having been settled before the passing of SRO 254 of 2008, the petitioner was not entitled to the interest as the deposit does not earn interest in terms of the aforesaid Rule. It is during the pendency of the petition that Executive Engineer MICD Srinagar came to be added as party respondent, who came to be directed to produce the record.