This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by one Ram Gulam, a retired Government servant for recovery of interest for the period from 1st October 1996 to 31st October 2005 over the amount of general provident fund due and payable to him.

The writ petitioner, a Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Additional Collector in the district of West Champaran, Bettiah came to be dismissed from service on 16th March 1996 on disciplinary grounds. Pursuant to his dismissal from service, he was entitled to receive the amount of provident fund standing to his credit in the provident fund account. The said amount however was not paid to the petitioner until 31st October 2005. The petitioner was paid the amount standing to his credit on 16th March 1996 and interest for six months from March 1996. The petitioner was not paid interest for the period from 1st October 1996 to 31st October 2005. Therefore, this Petition.

The Petition came up for hearing before the learned single Judge on 11th February 2010. The learned single Judge noticed the judgments of this Court in the matters of Ram Pavitra Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. {2003(1) PLJR 301} and of State of Bihar & Anr. Vs. Kedar Nath Jha & Ors. {2006(3) PLJR 473}. According to the learned single Judge both the said judgments took divergent views. The learned single Judge, therefore, referred the matter to the larger Bench. Since the reference to the larger Bench, the matter came up before the Division Bench. The Division Bench under order dated 11th October 2010 noticed the aforesaid judgment in the matter of State of Bihar & Anr. Vs. Kedar Nath Jha & Ors. {2006(3) PLJR 473} and another Division Bench judgment in the matter of The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Ram Pavitra Singh {2010 (3) PLJR 906}. In view of the divergent views, the Division Bench referred the matter to the larger Bench. The present petition has, thus, landed before us.

Learned advocate Mr. Sushil Kumar Ray has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that no sooner the petitioner was dismissed from service, it was the duty of the State Government to remit the amount of provident fund with interest up-to-date. The State Government having failed in its duty, the petitioner is entitled to recover interest from the due date till the date of payment on 31st October 2005.

Learned advocate Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi has appeared for the respondent-State Government.

Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi has submitted that Rule 14 of the Bihar General Provident Fund Rules 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) envisages that on retirement or dismissal or removal from service, the government servant or in case of death of the government servant, his nominee or successor in interest shall make application for withdrawal of the amount of provident fund. Sub-rule (4) of the aforesaid Rule 14 enjoins the State Government to pay interest over the amount of provident fund due for six months from the date it becomes due for payment. He has submitted that reading the aforesaid Rule 14(4) of the Rules with the Government Circulars dated 6th May 1988 and 5th March 2001, it is clear that in case the application for withdrawal of the provident fund amount is not received within the said six moths, after expiry of six months from the due date for payment, the State Government is not responsible for payment of interest over such amount. He has submitted that if the government servant or his nominee or the successor in interest, as the case may be, applies for withdrawal of the amount of provident fund within the aforesaid period of six months and the State Government fails to make prompt payment, the liability of the State Government to pay interest continues until the payment is made. He has submitted that in the present case although the petitioner was dismissed from service as early as on 16th March 1996 he did not apply for withdrawal of the provident fund amount until 5th October 2005. On receipt of the application, it was promp