C A V Judgment

P .R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice

1. Denial of the claim for interest on the provident fund contribution is the subject matter projected in this appeal filed by the former employee of the Respondent-Bank.

2. The Appellant was given appointment as Single-Window Operator in the Respondent-Bank as per the appointment order dated 23.05.2014 with a basic salary of Rs.7,200/- per month issued by the 2nd Respondent, pursuant to which, he joined at Gariyaband Branch of the Bank. After working for a period of two years, the Appellant resigned from the post by submitting letter of resignation dated 08.06.2016 and was relieved from the service of the Bank vide proceedings dated 15.06.2016, copies of which are collectively filed.

3. Alleging lapse on the part of the Respondent-Bank, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner filed Writ Petition (S) No.2504 of 2019 with the following prayers :

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner and for grant of a direction to the concerned respondent to allow the rate of interest applicable to EPF during period of 02 years and thereon @ 12% per annum from the date the bank has credited the amount in their suspense/current account in favour of petitioner within period of 30 days, in the interest of justice.

10.2 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.”

4. The insinuation levelled against the Respondent-Bank was rebutted by them pointing out that, the Bank was ready to release the amount due to the Appellant, provided that the Appellant furnished all the requisite details and completed the formalities required for releasing the provident fund, including by providing the Permanent Retirement Account Number ('PRAN') to the Respondent-Bank. Based on the said submission, the matter was disposed of as per Annexure A/3 order dated 05.04.2019; the operative portion of which as contained in paragraph-3 is as given below :

“3. Given the aforesaid submissions made by the respondents counsel, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the petitioner is directed to approach the respondent Bank and provide all necessary details as is required likewise PRAN number etc. and complete the formalities and thereafter the respondent Bank shall ensure that the entire provident fund amount on the completion of the formalities is released to the petitioner without any further delay within a further period of 60 days from the date of completion of his formalities.”

5. Pursuant to above direction, the Bank effected payment of an amount of Rs.88,003.04, which in fact was kept in the 'suspense account', on satisfaction of the requirements by the Appellant. The Appellant took a contention that the amount released to him would constitute only the contribution to the provident fund (effected both by the employee and the employer) under the Defined Contribution Pension Scheme ('DCPF') and that there was lapse and delay on the part of the Bank by virtue of which, the Bank was liable to satisfy a sum of Rs.40075/- towards interest for the relevant period. The claim was opposed from the part of the Bank with reference to the lapse on the part of the Appellant in completing the formalities; such as furnishing of PRAN and as such, no interest was liable to be paid as amount was kept only in the 'suspense account'. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge as per Annexure A/1 verdict dated 26.08.2019; observing that, the Court had not granted or made any observation for grant of interest in the previous writ petition and that the Appellant did not pray for any interest as well in that writ petition, by virtue of which, he cannot file any subsequent writ petition claiming interest and compensation. The learned Judge made a categoric observation that the delay for releasing the retiral dues cannot be attributed upon the Respondent-Bank and that the Appellant had to com