Chandrika Prasad Panda vs Director, Secondary Education and Others

S.N. Prasad, J—The writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties for release of final amount pertaining to General Provident Fund (GPF) along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and compensation for unnecessary harassment for getting the legitimate dues of the petitioner.

Case of the petitioner is that he has been superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.5.1989 as Hindi Teacher from O.P.M. Boys High School, Brajarajnagar. He has not been paid entire amount of GPF and only a sum of Rs. 5141/- was sanctioned and credited to the petitioner''s account but rest of the amount to the tune of Rs. 3204/- has not been paid.

Grievance of the petitioner is that as per the provision under Sub-Rule-3(iii) of Rule 17 under Chapter-VII of the G.P.F. Rules which provides that Director of Funds shall, after verification with the Ledger account, issue an authority for the amount indicated in the application at least a month before the date of superannuation payable, but rest of the GPF amount has not been paid which led the petitioner to file this writ petition.

According to the petitioner the amount of GPF can be withheld by the authority since amount deposited in the G.P.F. Account is statutory deducted from the salary of the petitioner. Employer is duty bound to release the amount of GPF the moment the employee is superannuated from service. Since the amount has not been paid for a long period without any fault on the part of the petitioner, he is entitled to get the amount along with statutory interest because if the petitioner is legally entitled it would have been released during the relevant time than it would have been deposited in the bank account and the petitioner would have earned income from the interest to be accrued over the said amount but the petitioner has been deprived from his legal right, hence he is entitled to get penal interest apart from statutory interest.

Although the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner way back in the year 1999 but no counter affidavit has been filed even after issuance of notice upon the opposite parties way back on 13.7.1999. When the case was taken up on 24.7.2015 adjournment was sought for to file affidavit but no affidavit has been filed.

Again the case was listed on 20.8.2015 no affidavit was filed as required by virtue of order dated 24.7.2015, hence this Court was constrained to pass order directing personal appearance of the opposite party No. 3, Controller of Accounts, Treasuries & Inspector, Odisha, Bhubaneswar along with original records pertaining to the claim of the petitioner and in terms of the said order Mr. Ranjit Kumar Rout is at present holding the post of Controller of Accounts, Odisha is present and filed show cause.

Stand has been taken in the show cause that immediate effort has been taken by the concerned opposite party after coming to know about the order passed by this Court and called for the relevant records relating to provident fund of the petitioner and found that out of Rs. 10,665/- claim to be deposited by the petitioner in his G.P.F. Account bearing No. 15724-SE, an amount of Rs. 7461/- was disbursed to the petitioner in three phases as would be evident from the table which is reproduced below:

It has further been stated that from the record it has been verified that balance amount of Rs. 3204/- (Rs. 10665 - Rs. 7461/-) could not have been authorized due to non-availability of relevant challan Nos. and dates of deposit in support of the aforesaid deposit, but however with a view to settle claim of the petitioner, earnest steps have been taken by deputing an officer to the office of the District Education Officer, Sambalpur on 5.8.2015 and 25.8.2015 to obtain relevant records to release the balance amount in favour of the petitioner. However, the District Education Officer, Sambalpur has expressed his inability to furnish old challan Nos. and dates of missing credit worth Rs. 3204/- as the same is not traceable in the records at such a belated stage. However, it has been confirmed by the District Education Officer, Sambalpur that deductions have been made from the salary of the petitioner vide letter No. 6487 dated 3.9.2015 by transmitting a copy of letter No. 7782 dated 19.5.1997 of erstwhile Inspector of Schools, Sambalpur and accordingly the District Education Officer, Sambalpur has authorized opposite party No. 3, Controller of Accounts, Treasuries & Inspector, Orissa balance amount of Rs. 3204/- along with up to date interest of Rs. 14,208/- as due and admissible under the G.P.F.(Orissa) Rules aggregating to Rs. 17,412/- issued to the present Drawing and Disbursing Officer i.e. Headmaster, O.P.M. High School, Brajarajnagar from where the petitioner has been superannuated vide letter No. 9850/CA dated 4.9.2015 for drawal and disbursement to the petitioner. Hence, it has been stated that full and final amount has been paid to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that amount of GPF is statutory amount and from perusal of the show cause it is evident that the amount was deducted from the salary of the petitioner and deposited in the respect G.P.F. Account of the petitioner and last instalment was paid on 30.8.1999 but thereafter no effort has been taken by the concerned authority for disbursement of rest of the amount which compelled the petitioner to file this writ petition as such it has been submitted that the petitioner is entitled for cost and interest over delayed payment of the statutory amount in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon several judgments pronounced by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of R. Kapur Vs. Director of Inspection (Painting and Publication) Income Tax and Another, (1994) 6 JT 354 : (1995) 1 LLJ 884 : (1994) 4 SCALE 349 : (1994) 6 SCC 589 ; and Dr. Uma Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and Another, AIR 1999 SC 1212 : (1999) 2 JT 359 : (1999) 2 SCALE 153 : (1999) 3 SCC 438 : (1999) 2 SCR 42 : (1999) AIRSCW 876 : (1999) 3 Supreme 138 .

Referring to the said judgments it has been submitted that the proposition has been laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that in case of delayed payment, employee is entitled to get penal interest. It has been submitted that the ratio laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the said cases is equally applicable to the facts of the case of the petitioner because the amount which was to be paid in the year 1989 has been paid in the year 2015, hence there is delay about 26 years due to lethargic approach of the authority concerned.

It is a fact that the moment an employee retired from service it is the duty of the employer to disburse the entire amount so that the purpose for which amount has been deposited to be utilized after superannuation. It is also fact that amount of GPF cannot be withheld on any ground whatsoever because it is the part of the salary which has been deducted from the salary of the petitioner and deposited in the GPF Account as a statutory contribution.

It is admitted fact in this case that the petitioner was entitled to be paid amount of GPF in the year 1989 but the amount has been paid in three phases up to the year 1999 and balance amount of Rs. 3204/- has not been paid, rather due to intervention of this Court amount has been paid and from the show cause filed on behalf of opposite party No. 3 it is a fact that the authority has even not in a position to trace out the record while admitting that the amount has been deducted from the salary of the petitioner and thereafter rest of the amount has been found to be paid in favour of the petitioner.

When any statutory deduction is made pursuant to the statutory provision the authority is supposed to obey the same in its letter and spirit, GPF is governed under the GPF Rules and as such the amount is supposed to be deposited in the respective account of the concerned employee. It is also expected from the authorities that record be maintained because dealing with process of GPF separate establishment has been created under the GPF Rules.

From perusal of the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 3 when query was made about the reason for not release of the amount from the concerned authority it has been stated that District Education Officer, Sambalpur has failed to trace out the challans while admitting the fact that amount was deposited after making deduction from the salary of the petitioner and accordingly rest of the amount of Rs. 3204/- along with statutory interest applicable as per GPF Rules, but the fact that why the petitioner be put at loss on account of lethargic approach of the concerned officer who has failed to discharge duty as per the provision provided under the Statute governing Rules and Regulations of the GPF, hence from facts it is apparent that the legitimate dues like GPF has not been paid to the petitioner in spite of his retirement in the year 1989 and the third phase payment was released in the year 1999 while remaining amount paid in the last part of the year 2015.

For determining the claim of the petitioner for penal interest judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Kapur v. Director of Inspector(supra) wherein their Lordships after applying principles laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case State of Kerala and Others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356 : (1985) LabIC 664 : (1985) 1 LLJ 530 : (1984) 2 SCALE 959 : (1985) 1 SCC 429 : (1985) 2 SCR 476 : (1985) 1 SLJ 106 : (1985) 17 UJ 764 has been pleased to direct the authorities for payment of interest on the pretext that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees.

This case is not according pension or gratuity rather it is for payment of G.P.F. amount which cannot be withheld on any ground what so ever which is settled.

Judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Uma Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and Another, AIR 1999 SC 1212 : (1999) 2 JT 359 : (1999) 2 SCALE 153 : (1999) 3 SCC 438 : (1999) 2 SCR 42 : (1999) AIRSCW 876 : (1999) 3 Supreme 138 wherein their Lordships after taking into consideration the fact that retirement dues has been paid after delay of 3 years has been pleased to pass order for payment of interest in meeting acute hardship to the petitioner.

Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court is some how similar in the case of D.D. Tewari Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., AIR 2014 SC 2861 : (2014) AIRSCW 4511 : (2014) LLR 964 : (2014) 9 SCALE 78 : (2014) 8 SCC 894 wherein their Lordships has been pleased to award at paragraph-6 interest at the rate of 9% on the delayed payment over the amount of pension and gratuity.

Thus from the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme court it is clear that the authorities before whom Government has rendered service is duty bound to disburse amount without any delay and in that account various decisions and notifications also been issued for preparation of pension papers so that pensionary benefits be released in favour of the concerned employee, without any unnecessary delay.

So far as amount of G.P.F. is concerned, same cannot be withheld on any ground what so ever since it is the contribution from the salary of the concerned employee to be deposited in separate account to be maintained under the Statute governing G.P.F. Rules but from the record it is evident that the authorities in gross negligence of their duties have released the amount phase wise and last but one instalment was released in the year 1999 while the petitioner was retired from service in the year 1989, hence last but one instalment was released after 10 years from the date of retirement that too rest of the amount has been withheld for which the petitioner has been compelled to file this writ petition.

Thus there is gross negligence on the part of the authorities, it is also evident from the affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties that even challans are not available on record while admitting the fact that statutory reduction has been made and thereafter rest of the amount has been released in the year 2015.

In view of the foregoing reasons and applying principles laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner also deserves to be given penal interest and accordingly following direction is passed:

"(1) Authorities are directed to release interest at the rate of 9% per annum upon delayed payment of amount i.e. interest from the date of retirement till 17.12.1993 over the amount of Rs. 5141/- by way of first instalment.

(2) Interest over the amount of Rs. 3986/- from the date of retirement till 18.1.1995 the date when second instalment of Rs. 3986/- was disbursed out of total admissible of G.P.F.

(3) Interest from the date of retirement till 30.8.1999 the date when 4th instalment of Rs. 4908/- was disbursed against total admissible of G.P.F.

(4) Interest upon Rs. 3204/- from the date of retirement till date of payment when rest of the amount has been paid against total admissible amount of G.P.F."

It is made clear that interest imposed as indicated hereinabove will be apart from the statutory interest admissible under the G.P.F. rule. Authorities will calculate penal interest at the rate of 9% per annum as indicated hereinabove and shall release the same within ten weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Simultaneously it is worth to see the cause of delay as to why delay has been caused for whose fault and for that petitioner has to rush to this court and this Court has passed direction for payment of penal interest, simultaneously authorities have paid amount with statutory interest admissible under the G.P.F. Rules. This fact certainly needs enquiry on the pretext that the authorities are knowing the fact amount of G.P.F. is legally payable to the petitioner and if there is no impediment but has to be paid, then why and for whose fault it has not been paid within the time which led the State to suffer by awarding penal interest and making statutory interest for such long period put the State Exchequer loss.

This Court is to pass order of penal interest considering the conduct of the authorities that even challans are not available with the record and it is admitted that deductions have been made from the salary of the petitioner, this shows gross negligence in duty by the authorities who are responsible for making payment towards G.P.F. amount to the petitioner.

Hence, the Controller of Accounts, Treasuries and Inspector, Odisha who is present in Court is directed to conduct enquiry in this regard, fix accountability upon the erring officer and recover amount of interest so that State Exchequer may not be overburdened for the fault of the employee due to their negligence in duty.

Needless to say while conducting enquiry erring officer must be given an appropriate opportunity of being heard.

With the above observation and direction, writ petition is disposed of.