Notification changes to the Public Provident Fund scheme do not retroactively affect accounts opened prior, especially when respondents failed to inform account holders of the amendments.

ORDER :

E.S.INDIRESH, J.

1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are assailing the letter dated 02.08.2023 issued by respondent No.1, inter alia, sought for a direction to the respondents to release the maturity amount with up-to-date interest in the account of the petitioners maintained with the respondent No.1.

2. Heard Sri. Nikit Bala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Popat Prashant Dharmasinh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Sadhana Desai, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that, the petitioners had opened an account in the name of Hindu Undivided Family through 'the public provident fund scheme' (hereinafter referred to as' the scheme') framed under the provisions of the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968. The deposit was made by the petitioners in the PPF Account with the maturity period of 15 years and was further renewable with the respondent No.1. It is stated that, the Central Government has evolved a scheme as per Notification dated 13.05.2005 (Annexure-R4) and issued the letter dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure-R5), wherein it stipulates that the PPF Account opened in the name of HUF, prior to 13.05.2005 cannot be further extended after maturity and no further deposit can be accepted in such accounts after maturity. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the letter dated 02.08.2023 addressed by the respondent No.1 to debit the interest from 01.04.2020 approximately, Rs.7,02,341/- in the respective Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. Hence, these petitions are filed.

4. Sri. Nikit Bala, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the petitioners were not aware about the Notification at Annexure-R4 and the letter dated 13.12.2010 at Annexure-R5 and as the petitioners have opened the PPF account during 2005 for a period of 15 years, the respondent ought to have informed the petitioners with regard to the Notification produced at Annexure-R4 and R5 and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, Smt. Sadhana Desai, learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned action at Annexure-D by referring to the Notification dated 13.05.2005(Annexure-R4), wherein 'HUF' and 'Hindu Undivided Family' were omitted from the PPF Scheme and therefore it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that, the petitioners are not entitled for interest from the date of maturity i.e., from the year 2020 till date. Alternatively, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that, the petitioners were informed through letter dated 02.08.2023(Annexure-D) and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the interest pursuant to the issuance of Annexure-D and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that, the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions, opened a bank account with the respondent No.1 under the Public Provident Fund Scheme. It is also not in dispute that, the period mentioned for maturity is 15 years in respect of the deposit made under the HUF/PPF Scheme. Undisputedly, the deposit made by the petitioners were matured during the year 2020 and at that point of time, the respondents were aware about the notification dated 13.05.2005(Annexure-R4) and the letter dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure-R5). If at all the respondents had informed the petitioners about the aforementioned Notification without renewing the further deposit, the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents would have been acceptable. Further the respondents have credited interest even aft