Ajay Kumar Ram, son of Late Shrichand Ram, Resident of – 302, Block-A, Pitamber v. 1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Nepal House, Doranda
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2633 of 2023 Ajay Kumar Ram, son of Late Shrichand Ram, Resident of – 302, Block-A, Pitamber Complex, Khelgaon Chowk, P.O. – Dipatoli, P.S. – Sadar, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 2. Union of India represented by the Hon’ble Ombudsman, office of the Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Bhubaneswar 751001, P.O. and P.S. – Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, P.S. – Saheed Nagar, Odisha. 3. Registrar, Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka, Jharkhand. 4. Sido Kanhu Murmu University, through its Vice Chancellor, having its office at Dighi Campus, Dumka, Pakur Road, Dumka, Jharkhand. 5. Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Branch Code 6545, PG Centre, S.K. University Branch, Opposite S.P. College, Dumka, Sahibganj Road, Dumka 814101, Jharkhand. … … … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioner : : For the State For the R.No. 5 : For the University : Amicus Curiae Ms. Ayushri, Advocate Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, AC to GP-II Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate 16/29.10.2024
Legal Reasoning
Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to transfer the amount of Rs.17,67,037/- from Saving Bank Account to Fixed Deposit Account with effect from 30.08.2022 as the amounts were transferred without any instruction of the petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to calculate the amount of interest creditable at the applicable rate for the period as provided to any other customer for the same period and to pay to the petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondent no. 5 to pay prescribed rate of interest upon the accumulated amount of Provident Fund as prescribed by the Government of Jharkhand on Provident Fund amount. Petitioner has further asked for a direction upon the respondents to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation. RC 1 3.
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Ayushri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner confines the prayer for a direction upon the respondents to pay the amount of Contributory Provident Fund. Learned counsel submits that as per prevalent Rules and the statute, petitioner is entitled for the amount of Contributory Provident Fund. Learned counsel further argues that in view of Notification dated 16.07.2011
Decision
(Annexure-3 to the writ petition), the Registrar of the University has clearly notified that the Vice Chancellor of the University has been pleased to allow the petitioner to opt Contributory Provident Fund in which the employees’ contribution shall be 10% of the pay of the employees as per the provisions laid down in the Statute under the Scheme ‘C’. Learned counsel argues that in the circumstances, petitioner is entitled for the amount of Contributory Provident Fund. Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the University submits that as petitioner was appointed on a tenure post, he is not entitled for any amount under the head of Contributory Provident Fund. Admittedly, appointment of the Finance Officer on a tenure post are governed by the Statute. To give proper assistance to the Court, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mahto, learned counsel was asked to assist the Court as amicus curiae. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel draws attention of this Court towards Annexures-2 i.e. The Statutes for the Grant of Retirement Benefits to Employees of the Bihar/Ranchi/Bhagalpur/ Magadh/ L.N. Mithila/ K.S.D. Sanskrit Universities and Annexure-3 i.e. the Notification dated 16.07.2011 of Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and submits that admittedly petitioner is entitled for the amount of Contributory Provident Fund which includes the 4. 5. 6. employer’s contribution of 10% of pay of the employee. 7. Having heard the parties at length, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is entitled for the amount of Contributory Provident Fund in which the employer’s contribution shall be 10% of the pay of the employee. It is relevant to quote Clause 1 of The Statutes for the Grant of Retirement Benefits to Employees of the Bihar/Ranchi/Bhagalpur/ Magadh/ L.N. Mithila/ RC 2 K.S.D. Sanskrit Universities, which reads as under: The Statutes hereby constituted the following “1. alternative schemes:- (a) General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme (given in Appendix-A); (b) Contributory Provident Fund – cum – Gratuity Scheme in which employer’s contribution to Provident Fund shall be limited to 8% of pay of the employee (given in Appendix-B); (c) Contributory Provident Fund only, the employer’s contribution shall be 10% of pay of the employee.” From bare perusal of the aforementioned Clause, it is crystal in which clear that the Contributory Provident Fund shall include the employer’s contribution of 10% of pay of the employee. Admittedly, the payment has to be made as per the provisions quoted hereinabove. Since petitioner was entitled for the entire Provident Fund on 09.05.2022 itself and till date payments have not been made, petitioner is entitled for the interest on delayed payment. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court as to whether an employee is entitled for interest on delayed payment on account of delay at the hands of respondents. The Hon’ble Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair reported in (1985) 1 SCC 492 wherein it has been held as under: 8. 9. “… … … pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment (to the employees)’. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.D. Tewari 10. (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Uttar Harayana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894 has held as under: It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from “6. service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006 and the order of the learned Single Judge after adverting to the relevant facts and the legal position has given a direction to the respondent employer to pay the erroneously withheld pensionary benefits and the gratuity amount to the legal representatives of the deceased employee without awarding interest for which the appellant RC 3 is legally entitled, therefore, this Court has to exercise its appellate jurisdiction there is a miscarriage of justice in denying the interest to be paid or payable by the employer from the date of the entitlement of the deceased employee till the date of payment as per the aforesaid legal principle laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to supra. We have to award interest at the rate of 8% per annum both on the amount of pension due and the gratuity amount which are to be paid by the respondent. 11. Similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh V. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 237 wherein it is held that salaries and pensions are “rightful entitlements” of government employees and in case of delay, they should be paid with interest at an appropriate rate. In the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 687, similar view has been reiterated. Thus, it is now settled proposition of law that if delay is on part of the respondents, admittedly the employee cannot be faulted with and the same has to be compensated by way of interest on delayed payment. 12. In view of facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the respondents are directed to release the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with 6% interest from the date it fell due till the date of actual payments within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 13. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC 4