SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Jhk) 840

Jharkhand High Court
R.K.Merathia, J.
Chander Mehta - Appellant
Versus
Jharkhand State Electricity Board - Respondent
CONT.(CIVIL) 846 Of 2004, CONT.(CIVIL) 846 Of 2004
Decided On : 2 December, 2005

Headnote:Service Law – claim of retrial benefit i.e. G.P.F. and statutory interest – direction to pay interest till the date of final payment of G.P.F. amount proceeding dropped. (Paras 3 to 6)

ORDER

R.K. Merathia, J.

1. Pursuant to the last order, Mr. Jayant Prasad, Deputy Director of Accounts, Dumka is present. Heard.

2. The only dispute in this case is with regard to payment of statutory interest on provident fund amount. Petitioners contention is that he should be paid up to the preceding month of payment, whereas, Boards case is that it is to be paid for maximum six months after retirement.

3. Admittedly, petitioner retired in the month of April. 2003 but the provident fund amount was sanctioned only on 25.2.2004 (Annexure-3) in which interest was calculated for six months after the month of retirement i.e. up to October, 2003. There is nothing to show that petitioner was at fault at any stage for the delay in payment.

4. Learned counsel appearing for JSEB, with reference to Rule 14(4) of the Bihar GPF Rules, submitted that interest was payable only for a period of six months from the date of retirement, if it was not paid within six months, but he could not show anything that as per the proviso to the said rule, the Accounts Officer intimated the petitioner a date on which he is prepared to make payment in cash or has posted a cheque to the petitioner.

In my view, in the facts of this case, statutory interest on GPF amount should be paid up to the month preceding the receipt of GPF by the petitioner.

5. In the circumstances, the Deputy Director of Accounts, Dumka and the Accounts Officer, Deoghar Circle, Deoghar are directed to calculate statutory interest from November, 2003 to July, 2004 and pay the same to the petitioner within four weeks from today.

6. It is not known, Who are responsible for such delays and who are benefited by it. The Secretary, Department of Energy and the Chairman of the Board should see that the Board does not suffer by paying further interest, due to delay in payment of retiral dues, and suitable action is taken against the persons, responsible for the delay, after due enquiry.

7. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for JSEB for communication to all concerned.

8. If the said order is not complied, petitioner will be at liberty to move this Court by filing a petition in this case.

9. With these observations and directions, this contempt proceeding is dropped.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top