Mihir Kumar Jha, J.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. In both the appeals, which have been heard together, a common question arises for consideration, namely, as to whether the State and its officials are bound to pay up-to-date statutory interest on accumulation of the amount of an employee under General Provident Fund till the date of its actual payment.

L.P.A. No. 1316/2002

3. L.P.A. No. 1316/2002 in fact arises out of an order dated 29.11.2002 in C.W.J.C. No. 10410/2002 whereby and whereunder a direction was issued for payment of statutory interest on the amount of provident fund of the respondent writ petitioner Ram Pavitra Singh, who had retired from service while holding the post of Assistant Teacher on 31.3.1989.

4. It is the case of the appellants State of Bihar and its officials that though the respondent writ petitioner had retired on 31.3.1989 but he had filed his application for withdrawal of the G.P.F. amount only on 31.10.2002 and as such, an authorization for payment of G.P.F. amount was issued on 14.11.2002 alongwith the interest calculated for the period upto 30.9.1989 i.e. for a period of six months from the date of his retirement in terms of Rule 14(4) of the Bihar General Provident Fund Rules, 1946 hereinafter referred to as G.P.F. Rules.

5. Counsel for the appellants in this context has also contended that in the present case there was no lache or lapse on the part of the officials of the State, inasmuch as the respondent writ petitioner was required to file an application for final withdrawal of his amount of G.P.F. and when he himself had delayed it over a period of 13 years and had filed the same only on 14.11.2002 it cannot be said that the State would also be liable to pay interest beyond a period of six months from the date of retirement in terms of the Pension Rules.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner has submitted that it is not correct to say that the application for withdrawal of G.P.F. amount was filed by writ petitioner on 14.11.2002 and in fact the appellants have tried to make out a new case before this appellate Court by producing a document which was not placed before the learned Single Judge in the counter affidavit filed by the appellants. In this context he has drawn our attention to that very application of the respondent writ petitioner showing that such application for a final withdrawal of his G.P.F. amount was received in the office of the District Superintendent of Education well within six months from the date of his retirement i.e. on 6.7.1989.

7. This Court on a close perusal of the materials on record including the counter affidavit filed by the appellants in the connected writ application would find that neither the respondents had annexed the document, as contained in Annexure-1 to the Memo of Appeal, the application filed by the respondent writ petitioner for final withdrawal of G.P.F. amount nor any firm date of filing of such application was mentioned in such counter affidavit. In this context the only relevant paragraph of the counter affidavit reads as follows:

"7. That in this case petitioner had not filed his application within six months after his retirement rather in fact on the application date has not been given by the petitioner and the application of petitioner was received in the office of this deponent on 14.11.2002 and the same day the authority slip was issued by this deponent."

8. Such counter affidavit was also filed by the District Provident Fund Officer and not by the District Superintendent of Education, Patna, who was the controlling authority of the petitioner before whom the Repondent writ petitioner as per G.P.F. Rules was required to file his application or final withdrawal and had also done so as is now apparent from the copy of Annexure-1 to this memo of appeal. In fact in the separate counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Superintendent of Education no such plea of delayed filing of the appl