The responsibility of the sanctioning authority to ensure timely payment of retiral dues, including provident fund, and the entitlement of the petitioner to up-to-date statutory interest on the provident fund amount.

R.M.Prasad, J.

1. In this writ petition, the grievances of the petitioner are twofold, firstly because he has not been paid interest on difference in the pay scale during the period 1-1-1971 to 31-3-1973 and secondly that the G.P.F. amount has also not been paid although he retired from the service as Teacher, Primary School, Jaunpur under Pandarak Anchal in Patna district on 31-3-1989.

2. Earlier on the request of the respondents this matters was adjourned after awarding a cost of Rs. 250.00 to enable the respondents to produce the necessary payment. Despite that the respondent authority has not produced the payment of the amount of interest for the said period.

3. The District Provident Fund Officer, Patna (respondent No. 4) has filed a counter-affidavit to which he has annexed a copy of the authorisation as Annexure-A showing authorsisation for payment of provident fund amount of Rs. 30,644.00 with statutory interest given till September, 1989 only and not up to the date of issuance of authorisation. The D.S.E. on the basis of the said authorisation produced a Bank draft of the said amount. The District Provident Fund Officer in the counter-affidavit has stated that the District Superintendent of Education, Patna (respondent No. 3) made available the relevant mandatory papers like statement of deduction and the application for final withdrawal of G.P.F. in prescribed proforma vide his letter No. 3815 dated 14-11-2002 and on that basis the entire calculation was done and authorisation was issued. It is further stated that from the said authorisation dated 14-11-2002 it would appear that the statutory interest on the entire G.P.F. amount was given up to September, 1989 i.e. for six months from the date of retirement because as per Finance Departments Circular dated 6-5-1988, the petitioner had not filed his application for final withdrawal of G.P.F. in prescribed format within six months after retirement. According to the District Provident Fund Officer, the notification of the Fiance Department and its clarification by the Directorate of Provident Fund, vide letter No. 1197 dated 5-3-2001, specifically provide that the statutory interest on G.P.F. for the delayed period in filing of the application for final withdrawal by the employees after six months after retirement till the date of filing of such application shall not be payable. In this regard he has annexed the copy of the Circular of the Finance Department as Annexure B and the clarification dated 5-3-2001 as Annexure B/2.

4. It is, thus, submitted by the learned Counsel or the State that the petitioner is not entitled for statutory interest up to the date of payment of his G.P.F. amount.

5. I am unable to accept the said submission of the learned Counsel for the State. This Court has in number of cases held that it is the responsibility of the sanctioning authority to get the necessary formalities completed for payment of the retiral dues, which obviously includes provident fund. In the case of non-gazetted Government servant, as per the Government decision, filing of forma! application was dispensed with in order to simplify the procedure for grant of pensionary dues and the responsibility was fixed upon the Head of the office and upon the Head of the Department in the case of Gazetted Government servant to get the necessary formalities completed sufficiently in advance so that a Government servant gets his entire payment of retiral dues on the date of retirement.

6. Despite the Government decision, this Court while hearing retirement benefits has found that it is very rare that this is being followed by any authority in the State and it is only after writ petitions are filed and directions are issued by the High Court that the authorities start taking action for the payment of the retiral dues which has resulted in piling up of the pendency of the writ petitions in this Court unnecessarily

7. This Court in the case relating to claim of provident fund in the