Financial discipline within public provident fund schemes necessitates adherence to statutory deposit limits, which invalidates any claims of interest based on excess contributions.

JUDGMENT

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

Heard C.M. Appln No.1 of 2025 for condonation of delay. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 271 days. Having perused the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Hence, delay is condoned and the appeal is heard finally.

2. The present intra-Court Appeal under Section 5 of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT 1958 assails the judgment dated 05.09.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.23639/2017 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by quashing the proceedings at Ext.P4 and directing the appellants herein to credit the amount of Rs.6,87,021/- to the accounts of the respondents herein with interest, as applicable under the Public Provident Fund Act 1968 (for short, 'Act 1968').

Facts

3. The appellant Nos. 1 to 3 are the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the writ petition, whereas the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the petitioners in the writ petition.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the third respondent is the mother of the first and second respondents herein. The third respondent had opened a PPF Account No.821 with the second appellant Post Office. Separate accounts were also opened in the names of the first and second respondents, being minors, which were numbered as PPF Account Nos. 822 and 823. Remittances were made in the afore-mentioned PPF Accounts. The first respondent attained the age of majority on 24.12.2005, whereas the second respondent attained the age of majority on 26.09.2007.

4.1 Thereafter, the amounts lying in the PPF Accounts were not withdrawn even after the first and second respondents attained the age of majority, but continued to deposit the amount from time to time. It is only in the year 2017, when the second appellant issued a communication dated 29.06.2017 addressed to the third respondent informing that the amounts deposited in the afore three accounts, taken together, would exceed the limit prescribed under the Public Provident Fund Scheme 1968 (for short, 'Scheme 1968') since the first and second respondents were minor. On this ground, an amount of Rs. 6,87,021/- towards accrued interest credit in the three PPF Accounts put together was appropriated by the second appellant.

4.2 Being aggrieved with such appropriation, the respondents herein filed the Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:

"i) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to the PPF Account of the petitioners;

ii) Direct the respondents to credit an amount of Rs. 6,87,021/- to the accounts of the petitioners with interest from the date of debit till the date of credit;

iii) Direct the respondents to credit the amount of Rs. 6,87,021/- to the accounts of the petitioners forthwith, pending disposal of this writ petition.

iv) To grant such other reliefs that may be sought for and deemed just and fit in view of the facts and circumstances of this case."

4.3 The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:

"15. However, it is to be noticed that the 2nd respondent has taken steps against the petitioners only in the year 2017. As already noticed, the petitioners 1 and 2 have already attained majority during 2005 and 2007. They were continuing with the PPF accounts and making periodical deposits, as afore noticed. So much so, in my considered opinion, the reference to the provisions under Rule 3(1) of the Scheme, relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, would not be apposite.

16. On the other hand, the provision