JUDGMENT :

Dr. D.P.Choudhury, J.

Challenge has been made to the award dated 30.07.2002 passed by the Banking Ombudsman, opposite party no.1, vide Annexure-4 in directing the State Bank of India-petitioner to pay simple interest prevailing on FD rate to both the deposits made by the opposite party no.2, i.e, Rs.8,11,845.23 and Rs.20,000.00 except the balance of Rs.60,000.00 earning interest in the PPF Scheme.

2. The adumbrated facts leading to the case of writ petition are that the petitioner, being State Bank of India, IDCO Tower Branch, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter called as “the SBI”) was working as facilitator for promoting Public Provident Fund Scheme (in short “the PPF Scheme”) floated under Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 (hereinafter called as “the Act, 1968”)

3. The opposite party no.2, after receiving the final withdrawal of the provident fund money from his ex-employer and, being interested to deposit the same under the PPF Scheme, deposited Rs.8,71,845.23 and Rs.20,000.00 on 1.6.1998 and 6.11.1998 respectively in his PPF Account No.703 after having consultation with the Chief General Manager of SBI. On 28.08.2001, an amount of Rs.8,31,845.23 was returned by the SBI to the opposi