Point of Law: Provident fund – Payment of interest - Interest beyond the period of 36 months, is not liable to be paid to the Petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the refusal by the EPF Authorities to pay interest for the period from 01st December 2017 to 28th December, 2018, on the total withdrawn EPF amount of Rs. 1,41,62,650/-, upon his retirement. The denial to pay interest was on the ground that the Petitioner’s EPF Account has become an Inoperative Account in terms of Para. 72(6) of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter “EPF Scheme, 1952”), w.e.f. December 2017. As per the Respondent Authorities, interest is not liable to be paid on the said Inoperative Account, in view of the bar contained in Para 60(6) of the EPF Scheme, 1952. Hence, the Petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking payment of interest on the ground that the provisions of Paragraph 72(6) of the EPF Scheme, 1952, are not attracted to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, interest is sought at 8.55% per annum, or in the alternative, at the bank rate, for the amount which was lying with the Respondent Authorities between 01st December 2017 to 28th December 2018.

2. The brief facts are that the Petitioner, Mr. Alok Kumar Agarwal, had joined the Centre for Railway Information System (hereinafter “CRIS”) as a Deputy Chief Engineer in November, 1990 and left in January, 1996 as Manager (Technical Services). The Petitioner’s EPF account was opened when he joined his services in CRIS. Thereafter, on 01st February, 1996, the Petitioner joined Business Standard Limited (BSL), New Delhi as Manager (Systems). In October, 2014, the Petitioner resigned from the designation of Chief Operating Officer (COO) at BSL at the age of 57 years. On 31st October, 2014, the Petitioner made his last contribution to his EPF account. The Petitioner transferred his EPF balance from CRIS to BSL on 16th October, 2017, and the same was acknowledged by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kolkata, vide letter dated 16th October, 2017.

3. The Petitioner’s EPF account is stated to have become inoperative from December, 2017 onwards. Thereafter, on 18th December, 2018, upon realising that he had not been paid interest for the period beyond November, 2017, the Petitioner filed a claim in Form 19 for final withdrawal of the total EPF accumulation. On 21st December, 2018, the Respondent Authority credited the entire sum of Rs.1,40,87,869/- into the Petitioner’s account and while settling the claim, interest was allowed for 36 months after the Petitioner’s retirement, i.e., up to November, 2017. Thus, the interest for the period from 01st December, 2017 to 28th December, 2018, was then sought by the Petitioner vide communication dated 28th February, 2019 to RPFC, Kolkata. The same was denied by Respondent No.4, vide the impugned Letter dated 22nd April, 2019. Thereafter, vide email dated 26th May, 2020, an application was sent by the Petitioner to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi. The same was also rejected and vide reply email dated 27th May 2020, the Petitioner was advised to raise his grievances through the Grievance Management System (hereinafter “GMS”). Accordingly, the Petitioner raised his grievance through the GMS platform vide Registration No. ROKKT/E/2020/06106. Vide the impugned e-mail dated 25th June, 2020, the Petitioner was informed of the final decision of the Respondent Authorities, whereby interest payment for 01st Dec. 2017 to 28th Dec. 2018 was denied on the ground that the Petitioner’s account was inoperative in terms of Para. 72(6) of the EPF Scheme. Hence, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

4. The reliefs which are prayed for in the present petition are as under:

“(i) Allow the instant Writ Petition;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby declaring that the provisions of Section 72(6) of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 are not attracted to the facts of the present case so