KANWAR DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER's husband Prabhu Ram was working as Assistant Commandant in 19th Battalion, Border Security Force, Jodhpur. He was a member of General Provident Fund Account. He retired from the Government service on March 20, 1978, after attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, Prabhu Ram moved an application on April 4, 1985 for the payment of G. P. F. amount. This application remained unattended and he again moved an application on May 5, 1985 reminding the respondents to make payment of G. P. F. amount to him. This application/reminder also was not processed and considered by the respondent and, therefore, he again reminded the authorities on March 4, 1986 for making him the payment of G. P. F. amount. All these applications/reminders remained unattended by the respondents and the payment of G. P. F. amount was not made to the petitioner's husband Prabhu Ram. In the meanwhile, petitioner's husband died on September 3, 1989. After the death of her husband, the petitioner also moved an application on January 2, 1990, for the grant of G. P. F. amount. This application was processed by the respondents and ultimately the G. P. F. amount payable to her husband was paid to the petitioner on June 25, 1991. The petitioner, by this writ petition, has prayed that the respondents may be directed to make payment of interest @ 18% per annum since the date the G. P. F. amount became due to her husband till it was paid to her.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was the duty of the respondents to have supplied a copy of the Application Form to the petitioner's husband one year in advance so that he could have moved the application for the grant of G. P. F. amount in the prescribed application form. Neither this; application form was supplied to him nor was the amount of G. P. F. paid to him and when an application was moved for the grant of G. P. F. amount, which was not in the prescribed application-form, the same remained unattended by the respondents and he was not paid the G. P. F. amount and as the G. P. F. amount was not paid to the petitioner's husband which became due to him on March 20, 1978 - the date on which he retired after attaining the age of superannuation-the petitioner is, therefore, entitled for interest on the G. P. F. amount since March 20, 1978 to June 25, 1991 when the G. P. F. amount was paid to her. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, is that Prabhu Ram retired from service on March 20, 1978. No application in the prescribed form was made by him to the respondents till January 2, 1990 and as soon as the application in the prescribed application-form was made, the case of the petitioner was processed and within 1-1/2 years, the payment of G. P. F. amount was made to her. So far as the applications dated April 4, 1985, May 15, 1985 and March 4, 1986 are concerned, it is contended that they were not addressed to the proper person and were not in the prescribed form and, therefore, they could not be attended. He, therefore, prayed that there is no delay on the part of the respondents in considering the application for the grant of G. P. F. amount and it was only on account of latches and delay on the part of the petitioner's husband that the G. P. F. amount could not be paid to him. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance over Rule 32 of the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960, and prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.

(3.) I have considered the submission by the learned counsel for the parties.