High Court · 2025

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Piprari Sanskrit Secondary School, Nibhapur, Jaunpur (for short the Institution) and after getting superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner approached to respondent no. 3 and 4 i.e. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and Finance and Accounts Officer, Secondary Education, Jaunpur for payment of his retiral dues. It is further submitted that the petitioner has received all the retiral dues except the General Provident Fund (GPF). Thereafter he has made several representations for payment of his GPF before respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. It is submitted that respondent no. 5 - Principal of the Institution has prepared a chart and sent the same to respondent no. 3 in the year 2015 for making payment of GPF to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 897818.00 (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighteen). The petitioner has furnished 'no dues certificate' and all the required details to the authorities and requested for payment of his GPF.

3. It is further submitted that when the GPF of the petitioner was not paid by the respondents after his best efforts, he preferred to file the instant writ petition before this Court with the prayer no. (i) mentioned above.

4. Counter affidavit was filed by the State in which it is stated that the Institution/School where the petitioner was working has not submitted the documents/file for payment of GPF amount to the petitioner in the office of District Inspector of Schools and due to which the GPF could not be paid to the petitioner. It is also contended in the counter affidavit that the Management/Principal of the Institution had sent the document with regard to payment of GPF amount to the office of District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur on 22.04.2022. Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur referred the matter to the office of Deputy Director of Secondary Education, 5th Region, Varanasi on 23.04.2022 for its approval.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State while referring to averments made in para-13 of the counter affidavi, has submitted that whatever delay caused in making payment of GPF to the petitioner is on account of not sending the document/file pertaining Management/Institution. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit filed by the State. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has denied the averments made in the counter affidavit, but there is no specific denial of the fact that the delay caused in payment of the GPF to the petitioner is due to non submission of relevant document/file of the petitioner to the competent authority. the petitioner by

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has placed written instruction dated 6.5.2025 before the Court, which is taken on record. As per instructions, the payment of the GPF has already been made to the petitioner and it has been received by him in four installments. It is further submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, nothing left for further adjudication in the instant matter.This fact has not been denied by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, perused the contents made in the writ petition as well as counter and rejoinder affidavits and the averments made in the instructions, it is admitted that the petitioner has already received his GPF amount as prayed in the writ petition. It is also not denied by the petitioner that he has received payment of his GPF amount, but he has submitted that since there are delay of more than 10 years in getting his GPF amount, he is entitled for interest on late payment of the GPF.

8. Now issue before this Court is that whether the petitioner is entitled for interest on delay in payment of the GPF or not.

9. It is settled law that a writ of mandamus is a judicial remedy that compel a government agency, public authority or inferior Court to perform a specific duty or all that it is legally obligated to do.

10. In contest of gratuity payment a writ of mandamus can be sought to enforce the payment of gratuity or interest if, the employer has failed to pay gratuity or has delayed payment without reasonable cause. The GPF could not be paid due to non- submission of the relevant document pertaining to the petitioner. Therefore, the State can not be held responsible for the aforesaid delay in the payment of gratuity.

11. It is admitted case of the State-respondents that there was no delay in providing GPF amount to the petitioner on the part of the State. The fault was on the part of the Institution who had not submitted document/file of the petitioner to the competent authority for the aforesaid purpose. The main grievance of the petitioner regarding payment of his GPF has already been resolved and the petitioner has already received his GPF amount. I do not find any reason to keep the matter pending on the claim of the interest on GPF amount as State is not responsible for the delay in granting payment of gratuity. The petitioner has all liberty to approach to the appropriate Forum for claiming interest on his GPF amount on account of delay by way of fling an appropriate application/petition.

12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition is disposed off. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 S.K.S. (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) SUNIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Piprari Sanskrit Secondary School, Nibhapur, Jaunpur (for short the Institution) and after getting superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner approached to respondent no. 3 and 4 i.e. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and Finance and Accounts Officer, Secondary Education, Jaunpur for payment of his retiral dues. It is further submitted that the petitioner has received all the retiral dues except the General Provident Fund (GPF). Thereafter he has made several representations for payment of his GPF before respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. It is submitted that respondent no. 5 - Principal of the Institution has prepared a chart and sent the same to respondent no. 3 in the year 2015 for making payment of GPF to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 897818.00 (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighteen). The petitioner has furnished 'no dues certificate' and all the required details to the authorities and requested for payment of his GPF.

3. It is further submitted that when the GPF of the petitioner was not paid by the respondents after his best efforts, he preferred to file the instant writ petition before this Court with the prayer no. (i) mentioned above.

4. Counter affidavit was filed by the State in which it is stated that the Institution/School where the petitioner was working has not submitted the documents/file for payment of GPF amount to the petitioner in the office of District Inspector of Schools and due to which the GPF could not be paid to the petitioner. It is also contended in the counter affidavit that the Management/Principal of the Institution had sent the document with regard to payment of GPF amount to the office of District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur on 22.04.2022. Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur referred the matter to the office of Deputy Director of Secondary Education, 5th Region, Varanasi on 23.04.2022 for its approval.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State while referring to averments made in para-13 of the counter affidavi, has submitted that whatever delay caused in making payment of GPF to the petitioner is on account of not sending the document/file pertaining Management/Institution. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit filed by the State. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has denied the averments made in the counter affidavit, but there is no specific denial of the fact that the delay caused in payment of the GPF to the petitioner is due to non submission of relevant document/file of the petitioner to the competent authority. the petitioner by

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has placed written instruction dated 6.5.2025 before the Court, which is taken on record. As per instructions, the payment of the GPF has already been made to the petitioner and it has been received by him in four installments. It is further submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, nothing left for further adjudication in the instant matter.This fact has not been denied by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, perused the contents made in the writ petition as well as counter and rejoinder affidavits and the averments made in the instructions, it is admitted that the petitioner has already received his GPF amount as prayed in the writ petition. It is also not denied by the petitioner that he has received payment of his GPF amount, but he has submitted that since there are delay of more than 10 years in getting his GPF amount, he is entitled for interest on late payment of the GPF.

8. Now issue before this Court is that whether the petitioner is entitled for interest on delay in payment of the GPF or not.

9. It is settled law that a writ of mandamus is a judicial remedy that compel a government agency, public authority or inferior Court to perform a specific duty or all that it is legally obligated to do.

10. In contest of gratuity payment a writ of mandamus can be sought to enforce the payment of gratuity or interest if, the employer has failed to pay gratuity or has delayed payment without reasonable cause. The GPF could not be paid due to non- submission of the relevant document pertaining to the petitioner. Therefore, the State can not be held responsible for the aforesaid delay in the payment of gratuity.

11. It is admitted case of the State-respondents that there was no delay in providing GPF amount to the petitioner on the part of the State. The fault was on the part of the Institution who had not submitted document/file of the petitioner to the competent authority for the aforesaid purpose. The main grievance of the petitioner regarding payment of his GPF has already been resolved and the petitioner has already received his GPF amount. I do not find any reason to keep the matter pending on the claim of the interest on GPF amount as State is not responsible for the delay in granting payment of gratuity. The petitioner has all liberty to approach to the appropriate Forum for claiming interest on his GPF amount on account of delay by way of fling an appropriate application/petition.

12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition is disposed off. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 S.K.S. (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) SUNIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad