V.K.Verma vs State of U.P.and Others

Satya Poot Mehrotra and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.—The present Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making of following prayers :

"a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of interest at the rate of 12% on the amount of G.P.F. for making payment after an inordinate delay of about 17 months.

b. issue any such other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

c. award costs of the writ petition to the petitioner."

It appears that the petitioners was employed as a Lecturer in the Department of Psychology in Agra Collee, Agra.

The petitioner attained the age of 60 years on 17.2.2003 but the continued in service till the end of acadmic session i.e., up to 30.6.2003 in view of the relevant provisions of the First statues of Agra University.

The amount of General Provident Fund due to the petitioner was paid after about 17 months of his retirement.

The petitioner made Representation dated 16.5.2005 (Annexure1 to the Writ Petition), inieralia, praying for payment of interest on account of delay in payment of General Provident Fund to the petitioner.

As the respondents did not pay the interest as claimed by the petitioner in the said Representation, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above.

A Counter Affidavit/sworn on 24.1.2011 has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Shri Anil Srivastava, Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not propose to file any Rejoinder affidavit, and the Writ Petition may be considered on merits.

In view of the above, we are proceeding to consider and dispose of the Writ Petition finally at his stage.

Subparagraphs (d) and (e) of paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Counter Affidavit are relevant for deciding the controversy involved in the present Writ Petition, and the same are reproduced below :

"d. That, it is submitted that in the petitioner''s case, also it took some time in collecting the relevant documents from various officers/authorities involved. Best efforts were made to decide the whole matter and accordingly payment to the tune of 414072/ which includes interest of one year (from 17.2.2003 to 16.2.2004) admissible to the petitioner was made vide dated 7.6.2004 of the Director, Higher Education. It is most humbly submitted that at the level of answering respondent best, honest, bonafide and all reasonable care and caution was taken to ensure payment of retrial benefits to the petitioner. It is further submitted that delay if any was caused in making of payment was not deliberate designed or malafide.

e. That it is most humbly submitted that delay if any has not been made because of any deliberate designed or negligent manner, it happened after best, bonafide, honest and reasonable attempts to ensure payment. It is submitted that petitioner applied for payment of G.P.F. on 17.2.2004 and payment of his G.P.F. amount including admissible interest of one year has been made vide order dated 7.6.2004 of the Director, Higher Education. Thus, there has not been inordinate delay in the payment of G.P.F. to the petitioner. Therefore, claimed by him and writ petition is accordingly devoid of merit and substance and deserves to be dismissed."

From the averments made in the above quoted paragraph of the Counter Affidavit, it is evident that the payment of General Provident Fund due to the petitioner with interest of one year (from 17.2.2003 to 16.2.2004) admissible to the petitioner was made to the petitioner by the Order dated 7.6.2004. The said total amount was Rs. 4,14,072/.

It is further evident from the averments made in the abovequoted paragraphs of the Counter Affidavit that the petitioner applied for payment of General Provident Fund only on 17.2.2004 and the payment, as noted above, was made tot he petitioner with admissible interest of one year by the Order dated 7.6.2004.

It is thus evident that the petitioner, though attained the age of 60 years on 17.2.2003 and ceased to be in service after 30.6.2003, applied for the payment of General Provident Fund only on 17.2.2004. The payment was made to him on 7.6.2004 with admissible interest of one year for the period from 17.2.2003 to 16.2.2004.

It will thus be seen that the petitioner himself made delay in applying for the payment of General Provident Fund.

The respondent nos. 1 and 2 have already paid admissible interest of one year to the petitioner. The time taken between 17.2.2004 to 7.6.2004 was evidently taken in finalizing the payment of General provident Fund to the petitioner for which no fault can be found with the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

In the circumstances, the claim of interest which has been made by the petitioner is misconceived, and the same is liable to be rejected.

In view of the above, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.