The main legal point established in the judgment is that the bank's unauthorized direction in denying the payment of interest to the appellants was not justified, and the appellants were entitled to receive interest on the amount which was required to be paid immediately after the death of the member.

Ashok Bhushan, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the Bank.

2. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20th June 2014, passed in Writ Petition No.23591 of 2011, by which order the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case which need to be noted for deciding the writ appeal are;

The husband of the 1st appellant and the father of the 2nd appellant was a subscriber of the Provident Fund under the State Bank of Travancore Employees Provident Fund, who died on 25th February, 1995. After the death of Mr. Varghese Koshy, the member, the appellants were informed by the Bank that since the deceased did not make any nomination in respect of terminal benefits, they have to obtain a succession certificate to claim the amount. The appellants approached the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, with OP (Succession) No. 159 of 1995. The succession certificate was granted only on 31st March 2011, authorizing the 1st appellant to collect provident fund due from the Bank. The 1st appellant submitted the certificate to the Bank and the Bank released the amount of Rs.2,43,495/- towards the provident fund by Ext.P5. The Bank had paid the interest only for a period of six months. Ext.P6 representation dated 17th June, 2011 was submitted for interest. When no response was given, the writ petition was filed by the appellants praying for following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay interest from 25.02.1995 (the date of death of Sri. Varghese Koshy) till 17.06.2011 (the date of payment on the provident fund dues to the petitioners) at 12% per annum with half yearly rests to the petitioners.

(ii) Award the cost of this proceedings”

3. The Bank filed counter affidavit in the writ petition and reliance was placed on Regulation 16 of the State Bank of Travancore Employees Provident Fund Regulations and it was submitted on behalf of the Bank that after the death of a member, interest shall accrue only for a period upto six months. Hence, there was no entitlement for interest after six months from the date of death of member. The learned Single Judge accepted the said contention and dismissed the writ petition. Writ appeal has been filed challenging the said judgment of this Court.

4. Adv. Jeena Joseph, learned counsel for the appellants, in support of the appeal, contended that the appellants being the member of “family” within the meaning of the Regulation, even though there was no nomination, they were entitled to receive payment as per Regulation 20 and in the present case, the Bank could not have asked the appellants to submit the succession certificate and the time taken in submission of succession certificate was due to the Court proceedings whereas the appellants had immediately filed proceeding OP (Succession) No.159 of 1995. Hence, the appellants could not be denied the interest for the aforesaid period, during which the amount was lying in the Bank. It is submitted that the delay in payment was on account of unauthorised action of the Bank in asking the appellants to obtain succession certificate. Hence, the Bank has to pay the interest for delayed payment.

5. Learned counsel for the Bank reiterated his submission that under Regulation 16, the interest shall cease after expiry of six months from the death of member. He further submitted that under Regulation 20, the last proviso, the Bank is entitled to require a person claiming payment to produce probate, letters of administration or a succession certificate. Hence, the Bank's action was justified and no error has been committed by the Bank in making payment of interest for a period of six months only.

6. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the facts and events that followed. The payment