ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question direction issued by the 1st respondent dated 23-09-2021 holding that the petitioner would not be entitled to any interest on the deposit made by him in the Public Provident Fund Scheme.

2. Heard Sri Chandrashekar Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-

The petitioner desirous of opening an account in the name of Hindu Undivided Family (‘HUF’ for short) in the Public Provident Fund Scheme (‘the Scheme’ for short) opened an account through an agent of the Provident Fund Organization who deals with such matters. The account was opened on 03.09.2009 and the maturity date of the said account is on 31.03.2025. The petitioner without fail has made deposits into the account which is now worth at `12,96,412/- inclusive of interest applicable under the said Scheme. After about 12 years of opening of the account on 23-09-2021, the 1st respondent/ Postmaster HSG-I, India Post communicates to the petitioner observing that the petitioner has opened a PPF account under the Scheme in the capacity of HUF after 31-05-2005. Hence, it was treated as an account that was irregularly opened and had to be closed without interest and issues a communication to the

2nd respondent as well to communicate to the petitioner that the account would be carrying no interest.

4. The petitioner replies to the said communication on

04-10-2021 to settle the amount along with interest as the petitioner was not aware of any policy of Government and was neither made aware of the same by officers of the Post Office at the time of opening of the account or remittances to the account. The respondents declined to accede to the request of the petitioner which resulted in causing a legal notice upon the respondents to pay the deposited amount with applicable rate of interest along with damages. After receipt of the legal notice, the 2nd respondent on 10-06-2022 issues instructions to close the PPF accounts which are opened in HUF capacity in the office of the 1st respondent including that of the petitioner. It is these actions that drive the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends with vehemence that the petitioner opened the account on 03-09-2009, at which point in time no officer of the 1st respondent did ever mention that opening of the account was irregular. The deposits have been made for the last 12 years during which period also the petitioner was not made known that the account was irregular. The petitioner on the desire of earning interest has invested his money in the PPF under the Scheme in HUF account. Therefore, he would submit that for no fault of the petitioner he is now being penalized without any interest that too after several years of receipt of amount.

6. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner is a literate person. Knowing fully well that the Scheme did not exist has opened HUF account and invested his money in HUF account under the PPF Scheme and having signed on the dotted line he is bound by whatever be the policy or law of Government of India notified from time to time. It is his submission that HUF PPF Scheme account stood closed way back in the year 2005. Four years after the closure of the Scheme the account could not have been opened. Therefore, the petitioner will not get any amount as interest on the investment. He would seek dismissal of the petition justifying the action of denying interest.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The Government of India through the 1st respondent had notified a Scheme c