The duty of the Accounts Officer to make payment as per the Bihar Pension Rules and the Provident Fund Act, and the entitlement to statutory interest.

1. In this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved on account of non-payment of the amount of G.P.F. with statutory interest, leave encashment for 240 days and refund of security deposit of Rs. 500/- on his retirement on 31.12.1989 while posted at Deoghar Anchal under Deputy Commissioner,Deoghar (Respondent no.1).

2. Notice of this writ petition was served on the Respondents through the learned Advocate General representing the State of Bihar and its officials and through the Central Government Standing Counsel representing the Accountant General, long back on 23.8.1999. However, despite service of notice, no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State- Respondents.

3. This Court vide order dated 27.4.2000 after noticing the fact that the petitioner though retired from service on 31.12.1989 yet has been kept deprived of his legitimate post-retiral dues, adjourned the matter to 1.5.2000 on the request of the learned State Counsel with a direction that the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar (Respondent no.1) should produce necessary sanction order/authorisation for payment of admitted dues of the petitioner along with the calculation chart. Again on 1.5.2000 there was no response from the said Respondent and as a matter of last indulgence, this Court adjourned it to 3rd May, 2000. On 3rd May, 2000 again there was no response whereupon on the request made by the learned counsel for the State one more indulgence was granted on payment of cost of Rs. 500/- to be deposited by Respondent no. 1 from his own pocket with the Secretary, Patna High Court Council for Legal Aid and Advice.

4. On 8.5.2000 counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 & 2 along with supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3, in paragraph 5 of which it is stated that the petitioner has been paid G.P.F. amount due along with uptodate statutory interest and in this connection three authority slips amounting to Rs. 8,548/-, 13,631/- and 1,156/- have been annexed as Annexure-A series. However, in subsequent paragraph, it is stated that because of late filing of the petition for final withdrawal by the petitioner i.e. on 24.1.2000 he was not entitled to interest for the belated period as per the notification of the Finance Department, Bihar, Patna, contained in Memo no. 3373 dated 6.5.1988 (Annexure-B). With respect to the earned leave, it is stated that the same has been paid vide Annexure-D on 5.5.2000. With respect to the security deposit, it is stated that the petitioner started his service from Jarmundi of Dumka district on 20.12.1954 and lastly superannuated on 31.12.1989 from Deoghar Anchal of Deoghar district. The amount of security deposit was with Dumka district. In this connection 47 Nazir receipts regarding deposit of security money were produced by the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 550/- has been paid by the petitioner against security deposit in anticipation of the amount being transferred from Dumka district.

5. It appears that only after coercive action was taken by this Court that the Respondents woke up to discharge their liability/duty. The only plea taken in the said counter affidavit is that the Respondents came to know only on 2.5.2000 about the decision taken by this Court on 27.4.2000, hence, they could not comply or take steps in this connection in time. In the main counter affidavit, an another plea has been taken that the original service book of the petitioner is not available. A duplicate service book has been received from the Circle Office, Madhupur that is the previous place of posting of the petitioner. As regards subscription in G.P.F. account up to 1981-82, it is stated that the petitioner is partially correct that he is entitled to get G.P.F. account at the end of the financial year but the Director, G.P.F. was not in a position to issue the same because the balance sheet up to 1981-82 has not been tansferred to the Director, G.P.F. accordingly, the same could not be supplied to the