The court affirmed the obligation of the Co-operative Bank to pay provident fund dues with interest, rejecting claims of delay and emphasizing compliance with prior court orders.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Jai Prabhat Kishore, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. S N Pathak, learned Advocate for the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Co-operative Bank”) and Mr. Prashant Sinha, learned Advocate for the Employees Provident Fund Officer (EPFO). The State is represented by Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, learned Advocate.

2. The petitioners in batch of these writ petitions are retired employees of the Co-operative Bank. They have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay their full provident fund with up-to-date interest till the payments are made in their favour, in view of the order dated 12.04.2017 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Patna. The petitioners also sought a direction upon the respondents to include those amount of interests, which have not been taken into account at the time of calculation made by the respondent no. 1, through Chartered Accountant without giving any notice to the petitioners and also grant up-to-date interest till the payments are made. Apart from the aforesaid reliefs, the petitioners also sought a direction upon the respondent Co-operative Bank to refund the amount of leave encashment, salary to the petitioners with 10 per cent interest in the light of the order passed in LPA No. 1401 of 2014.

3. The short facts which led to the filing of the present writ petitions are that the petitioners were appointed in respondent Co-operative Bank and after serving in different branch, they superannuated in the year 2004-2010. Upon retirement of the petitioners, the respondent Co-operative Bank by charging compound interest in place of simple interest on advance loan amount had illegally debited excess amount from provident fund account of the petitioners, in order to clear the advance loan against provident fund deposit. The issue came up before this Court through several writ petitions and finally came to be settled in LPA No. 838 of 2014 and other analogous cases, including LPA No. 1175 of 2014 filed by the respondent no. 2, wherein, the learned Division Bench of this Court had observed that the no refund of provident fund shall be made to an employee except on his retirement or termination of his service and the question of levy of compound interest on advance loan by treating it a part of provident fund is untenable. The matter traveled up to the Apex Court in the SLP No. 22705-22706 of 2015 at the instance of the respondent Co-operative Bank. However, the same came to be dismissed on 06.03.2017, affirming the order of the learned Division Bench of this Court.

4. The law having been settled as aforenoted; and the consequent order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Patna on 12.04.2017, the debited amount of the provident fund of the petitioners were calculated by the respondent Co-operative Bank through Chartered Accountant with due interest for the period from 2004 to 08.05.2015. The part payment was made in the year 2018 and further in the year 2019, but without adding the interest from 08.05.2015 till the date on which payment has been made.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that despite the fact that other similarly situated persons, who approached before this Court, they have been allowed interest over the outstanding due amount till the payment is made, but discrimination has been caused and the petitioners have been compelled to approach before this Court. Learned Advocate for the petitioners also contended that so far the payment of interest on leave encashment is concerned, it was also illegally withheld in order to adjust the advance loan on charging compound interest and the same has been returned after a decade but without any interest thereon, which certainly requires to be paid with interest @ of 10 per cent in the light of the order passed by this Court in LPA No. 1461 of 2011.

6. Similar issues have taken up by different co-ordinate Benches of this Court