Subhash Chandra Jha v. Bihar State Financial Corporation, Fraser Road, Patna

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manik Vedsen, with Mr. Subhash Chandra Bose, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Raju Giri, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 13 06-03-2013 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs enumerated in paragraph-1 of the writ petition, which reads as follows:- order/orders,

That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other direction/directions writ/writs, commanding respondents to furnish details and to make payment of (a) provident Fund Standing in the credit of the petitioner in the Bihar State Financial Corporation Employees Provident Fund as on 22.8.2001 together with interest till the date of payment and (b) all other dues including those of Insurance Linked Gratuity, Group Insurance, salary and allowances and pending bills (T.A. & medical)

.

It is not in dispute that while the petitioner was working as Deputy Manager, under the Respondent Bihar State Financial Corporation, he was subjected to disciplinary Patna High Court CWJC No.412 of 2005 (13) dt.06-03-2013 proceeding and finally he was awarded punishment of dismissal from service by an order dated 22.08.2001. Statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal failed. Whereafter the petitioner, after a round of litigation, finally preferred CWJC No. 13529 of 2005 before this Court assailing the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority as also the appellate order rejecting his appeal. The writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was finally allowed by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 26.03.2008. Order of punishment was set aside. The petitioner was held to be entitled for all consequential reliefs including arrears of salary. It is the common case of the parties that against the aforesaid order passed by the learned single Judge, Respondent Corporation preferred LPA before a Division Bench of this Court, which was dismissed and the order passed by the learned single Judge was affirmed. Whereafter respondent Corporation took the matter to the Hon’ble Apex Court, but there also order passed by the learned single Judge was affirmed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner is entitled for the provident fund and other post retiral dues including gratuity with statutory interest till the date of his superannuation.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition the payments of post retiral dues have been made. Even interest on the provident fund and gratuity etc. has been paid upto 31.03.2004. In support of his aforesaid submissions he has placed reliance on the averments made in paragraphs- 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit filed on Patna High Court CWJC No.412 of 2005 (13) dt.06-03-2013 behalf of the respondents.

After having heard the parties and on considerations of the materials available on record this Court finds that the major part of the reliefs has already been granted to the petitioner by the respondent Corporation itself. Even interest has been paid on EPF upto 31.03.2004. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. However, a grievance is being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per their own showing respondents have paid the post retiral dues of the petitioner after 31.03.2004 on different dates as indicated in paragraph-3 of the counter affidavit. Interest has not been paid to the petitioner till the date of actual payment. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents are obliged to pay interest till the date of actual payment of post retiral dues.

A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been stated that BSFC Employee Provident Regulation, 1955 was subsequently amended, and, therefore, as per Regulation 15 of the said Regulation, the petitioner is not entitled for interest for the subsequent period. In the supplementary counter-affidavit the respondents have not indicated the date of amendment in the aforesaid Regulation 1955. However, a copy of the aforesaid amendment has been brought on record as Annexure-R/1 of the aforesaid supplementary counter-affidavit. Apparently, amendment in the aforesaid Regulation, 1955 has been effected by a standing order dated 24.01.2011. It is well settled that any amendment in statutes apply prospectively unless specifically provided for coming into force from a retrospective date for certain valid reasons. In the present case the payment of provident Patna High Court CWJC No.412 of 2005 (13) dt.06-03-2013 fund amount has actually been made by the respondents and even part of the interest has been paid upto 31.03.2004, though actual payment was made subsequently. Therefore, on the basis of this standing order dated 24.01.2011 (Annexure-R/1), the respondents cannot deny the claim of admissible statutory interest to the petitioner on his admissible post retiral dues till the date of actual payment made by the respondents.