Retired government servants are entitled to interest on delayed GPF payments, and there is no requirement to withdraw GPF amount within a specific period, as per GPF rules and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

Alok Aradhe, J.

These appeals arise out of common judgment dated 28.08.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions by which writ petitions preferred by the appellants were dismissed. Since common questions of law and fact arise for determination in these appeals, therefore, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The appellants are admittedly retired government servants who were deprived of their claim of payment of general provident fund along with interest. Being aggrieved, the appellants approached this Court by filing writ petitions in which the writ of mandamus was sought commanding the respondents to release the amount of general provident fund as well as interest from the date of release of the amount of the general provident fund in full. The appellant No.1 in LPASW No.127/2010 superannuated on 31.12.2004 as Chief Accounts Officer from PHE Department. Admittedly, the general provident fund authority issued general provident fund Form No.30 in favour of the appellant No.1 on 20.06.2007 and calculated interest amount to Rs.52,738/- for the period from 01.07.2005 to 31.05.2007. However, the amount due to the appellant No.1 was not paid to the appellant No.1. The appellant No.2 is the legal heir of the deceased-original petitioner, Smt. Vimla Gupta who superannuated on 30.06.2002 and GPF form No.30 was issued to her on 27.12.2006 but the interest was released only up to 31.12.2002 and was quantified at Rs.1,56,075/- for a period from 01.01.2003 to 30.11.2006. The appellant No.3 retired on 31.01.2004 and the general provident fund authority issued form No.30 in his favour on 04.09.2006. An amount of Rs.60,752/- plus interest for a period from 01.04.2006 to 31.08.2006 was quantified an amount due to the appellant No.3. The appellant No.4 retired in January, 1992. Though he was paid the total payment of general provident fund amount to the tune of Rs.13,734/- in Feb.2007 and April 2007, yet the amount determined by the respondents is not in consonance with the provisions of the law. Form No.30 was issued in the favour of appellant no.4 on 24.02.2007. The appellant No.5 attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2003 and got an extension of two years and served the university till December, 2005 and thereafter applied for withdrawal of the general provident fund and an amount of Rs.3,00,560/- was computed as amount due to the appellant No.5 which includes the general provident fund subscription for the months of January and February, 2004.

3. In LPASW No.37/2010, the appellant retired as Superintending Engineer on 31.08.2002. The amount due to him was quantified to the tune of Rs.2,52,648/- by the respondents. It is the case of the appellant that he is entitled to interest accrued on the General Provident Fund release in favour of the appellant in view of Rule 16 of the GPF Rules read with Rule 7 of the Rules.

4. In LPASW No.143/2010, the appellant superannuated from the post of Deputy Director on 31.08.2001. The amount due to the aforesaid appellant was quantified at Rs.4,01,476/- plus interest at the rate of 12 per cent as prevalent on the date of superannuation. However, the appellant was deprived of the interest on the general provident fund. In the aforesaid factual background, the appellants approached the learned Single Judge by filing the writ petitions claiming the reliefs as stated supra. The learned Single Judge by a common judgment dated 28.08.2009 dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the appellants inter alia on the ground that SRO 254 dated 2nd of September, 2008 is prospective in nature and since the appellants had made claim for release of GPF amount after a period of six months and therefore they are not entitled to any interest.

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellants at the outset submitted that the issue involved in these appeals is no longer res integra as the same is covered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of