Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23017 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Amrit Prasad S/O Late Ram Awtar Ram, Resident Of Mohalla- Dainapur, P.O- Chandchoura, P.S- Civil Line Gaya, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. D.D.C. Gaya, District- Gaya. 4. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Gaya. 5. S.D.O, Gaya Sadar, Gaya. 6. Anchal Adhikari, Belaganj, District- Gaya. 7. Director Provident Fund, Bihar, Patna. 8. District Provident Fund Officer, Gaya. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajni Kant Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri, A.A.G-XI Dr. Bipin Chandra,A.C. to A.A.G.-XI ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 22-04-2013 This is one of those cases where the petitioner has gathered courage to come to this Court to expose the apparent corruption that prevail in the system. The corruption has been built up in such a manner that either a person has to come or face adverse consequence. The petitioner retired as a Panchayat Sewak on 30.9.2007 from Beleganj Block under the district of Gaya. The petitioner was contributing regularly to his G.P.F. account being RDD-467/Gaya. He submitted his G.P.F. withdrawal papers. Ultimately it appears that the Block Development Officer,
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.23017 of 2012 (3) dt.22-04-2013 2 Beleganj, under his memo no. 1411, dated 27.8.2008 forwarded the application of the petitioner to the District Provident Fund Officer, Gaya. Even though the application was received on 8.9.2008 in the office of the District Provident Fund Officer, as contained in Annexure B to the supplementary counter affidavit. The authority slip was issued in respect of G.P.F amounting to Rs. 3,51,454/- on 5.3.2009 which included the interest from 1.10.2007 to March, 2008 i.e. six months period and no further interest. Upon the authority slip being sent to Block Development Officer, who is drawing and disbursing officer, the Block Development Officer had to issue a cheque to the petitioner, which cheque had to be enchased from the Treasury Office at Gaya. Suddenly the authority slip is lost by the Block Development Officer for which to cover himself the Block Development Officer lodged an FIR being Beleganj P.S.Case no. 125 of 2009. Mischief once again is clear. As consequence of lost of authority slip, the B.D.O. then requested for issuance of fresh authority slip. After almost a year fresh authority slip, as demanded by B.D.O., was not issued but on 6.7.2010 B.D.O. informed the District Provident Fund Officer that the lost authority slip has been discovered. The FIR was then got cancelled but by now the authority slip, which is valid for six months, had become stale and thus required Patna High Court CWJC No.23017 of 2012 (3) dt.22-04-2013 3 revalidation. The District Provident Fund Officer, Gaya, then on 28.12.2010 wrote to the Treasury Officer, Gaya, to return the authority slip so that both copies of authority slip may be revalidated . Reminders were sent. As later as on 12.12.2013, the Treasury Officer informed the District Provident Fund Officer that the authority slip had already been sent by him for revalidation on 16.11.2009. Upon receipt of the same, the authority slip, duly revalidated, was sent to the Block Deelopment Officer, Beneganj, on 14.2.2013 and thereafter by cheque dated 30.3.2013, the said amount of Rs. 3,51,454/- has been paid to the petitioner. In the supplementary counter affidavit it is pointed out that some interest has been included in the payment aforesaid i.e. up to March 2008. Then some further sum has been paid as interest. It must first be noted that the petitioner had retired in 2007. As noted above he made an application for refund of his G.P.F., which could not have been with-held as it was his contribution. This application was then forwarded by the B.D.O. to the District Provident Fund Officer in August, 2008. It is in March, 2009 that the authority slip was issued, which was then lost by the B.D.O., who gave information to the District Provident Fund Officer immediately. The District Provident Fund Officer’s Patna High Court CWJC No.23017 of 2012 (3) dt.22-04-2013 4 office then took time from 2008 to February, 2013. It sat over the matter and ultimately it is only on intervention of this Court that revalidated authority slip was issued and ultimately the petitioner was given the cheque of the principal amount and six months’ interest on 30.3.2013 .This shows that thing would not move unless citizen are forced to adopt inappropriate practice to move it. If the officers are not obliged, nothing will move as if it is the discretion of the officer. Unfortunately it may be the discretion of the officer but the State would have to compensate for the delayed. Upon the facts aforesaid, where clearly some one was deliberately trying to harass the petitioner and the petitioner was not at fault, the petitioner would be entitled to interest till the date cheque was issued to him on 30.3.2013. This interest would be on the full value of the authority slip i.e. Rs. 3,51,454/- because that was the amount that was with-held by the authority. The petitioner would be entitled to interest from the date the application was sent by the B.D.O. i.e. 27.8.2008 to 30.3.2013 on the said amount at the rate of 6% per year and any interest paid for that period on earlier occasion may be adjusted after due intimation to the petitioner. This is so because even in the supplementary counter affidavit it is stated that a further sum of Rs. 22,000/- has been paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner refused having Patna High Court CWJC No.23017 of 2012 (3) dt.22-04-2013 5 received the same. This calculation of interest and payment thereof has to be made to the petitioner within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Director, Provident Fund, Bihar, Patna (respondent no.7). It would be open to the State to realize this interest from the officer(s), who were responsible for this delay so that the answerability with regard to wrong exercise of discretion is fixed and the people are not harassed in this manner in future. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
Decision
petition is disposed of. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) singh/N.A.F.R.