1. The petitioner is the widow of Late Bhagat Prasad, who sought voluntary retirement on 1.5.1993 while working as Headmaster, Government Middle School, Laxmipur Laukhan, Anchal Ghorsahan, in the district of East Champaran and ultimately died on 30th October, 1997.

2. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner made all efforts to persuade the respondent-authorities to make payment of his provident fund dues, but the respondents-authorities have not paid the same to her husband while he was alive or to the petitioner, which compelled her to file the present writ petition.

3. The petitioner claims to be the nominee of her deceased husband and is entitled to receive the provident fund amount.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Provident Fund Officer, Motihari (respondent no. 5) in which it is stated that the District superintendent of Education, Motihari has not sent application for final withdrawal to this respondent.

It is further stated that a letter was sent to the District Superintendent of Education for sending application for final withdrawal and balance up to 1985- 86. The said respondent has, thus, shown helplessness in authorising the amount of G.P.F. in the absence of balance standing at the credit of the subscriber upto 1985-86 and the application for final withdrawal in the prescribed form duly filled in and signed by the head of the office and countersigned by the District Superinten dent of Education under rule 529 of the Bihar Treasury Code Volume I.

5. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran and the District Superintendent of Education, West Champaran (respondents no. 3 and 4 respectively). In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 it is stated that the petitioners husband never submitted the application in the prescribed proforma for the payment of G.P.F. till his death on 30th October, 1997. It is also submitted that his wife, who is the sole claimant of the deceased, submitted the claim on 9.11.1999 in the prescribed proforma. After the receipt of the claim, the process for payment was started and it took almost four and a half months to finalise the claim of the widow even from the said date, pursuant to which a demand draft dated 28.3.2000 has been produced.

6. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 it appears that it is only after the filing of his writ petition that steps have been taken for payment of the said dues. It is stated that the delay was caused due to non-availability of the certified copy of the service book of Late Prasad, which was provided by respondent no. 3 on 10th March, 2000 and consequently, he sent the G.P.F. statement on 11.3.2000 for necessary payment. According to the respondent no. 4, the respondent no. 3 has to make payment of provident fund of the husband of the petitioner.

7. It appears from the calculation chart produced by the learned Standing Counsel No. Ill appearing for the said respondent that the statutory interest has been calculated only up to October, 1993 and for the period November, 1999 to March, 2000, no amount of interest has been paid on the G.P.F. for the period November, 1993 to October, 1999. It has been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the statutory interest for the remaining period has not been paid as the application for withdrawal of G.P.F. amount in the prescribed form was submitted in November, 1999. The respondents have not denied the fact that the representation was made by the deceased on 17.3.1994.

8. This Court finds it difficult to accept the submission of the learned Standing Counsel.

He has not been able to show any rule under which a person can be deprived of the statutory interest for the period the G.P.F. amount has been retained by the State authorities.

9. It has been stated in the writ petition that the husband of the petitioner made all efforts to persuade the respondent- au