Nawal Kishore vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Posts And Ors Dak

1. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. The prayers in the present writ petition are delineated below:- "(I.) To issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, setting aside the impugned letter dated 01.02.2025 and the impugned communication dated 29.03.2025, contained in Annexure No. 1 and 2, respectively, to the instant writ petition, whereby the Petitioner was denied the amount of Rs. 3,72,829/-, i.e., the interest which had already accrued for the financial year 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23. (II.) To issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to the Respondents directing them to pay the Petitioner the amount of Rs. 3,72,829/-, which has been wrongfully withheld by the Respondents, along with interest thereon as per the highest applicable rate of interest on PPF (HUF) accounts for the period during which the Respondents have retained the amount due to the petitioner till the time such payment is made to the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the PPF account, he was depositing money on a regular basis and the interest that was accruing was showing in the said passbook. However, the respondent-authorities have now, after a very long time, held that the interest for three financial years being 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23, as has been indicated in the passbook, is not payable to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on a 2 WRIC No. 10379 of 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Balkrishan Malhotra Vs. Department of Post and others, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del. 9249, wherein Justice Vibhu Bakhru (as he then was) has dealt with an identical issue and held as follows:- "31. It is apparent from the above that the money collected by the Government through deposits in small savings schemes is channelized into the economy of our country and the Government also receives interest on such investments. The said utilization of public money by the Government puts them under a lawful obligation to repay the subscribers the principal amount along with Interest, as the aforesaid utilization of public money by the Government is in the form of investment and the public, being the fund providers, are entitled to receive a return on such investment both in principal and Interest.

32. In the present case, the petitioner has continued to make deposits in his PPF Account even after 31.03.2013 (the maturity date) and till April, 2017 (On 19.04.2017, the petitioner made the final deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the PPF Account). The respondents, on the other hand have, admittedly, falled to close the petitioner's PPF account and continued to accept deposits. The said deposits along with the interest on such deposits, have also been reflected in the passbook and the statements of accounts. Undisputedly, the said amounts, deposited In the PPF Account of the petitioner, have been utilized (invested) by the Government. Clearly, the petitioner is entitled to receive the interest for such deposits (Investment) made by him and he cannot be deprived of this entitlement on account of an error/irregularity/omission on part of the respondents.

33. In Varinder Jeet Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2013) 134 DRJ 284, a coordinate bench of this Court held as under: "15. It is settled law that if a person is deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled, he has a right to be monetarily compensated for the sald deprivation. [Ref, (1992) 1 SCC 508 Secretary, Irrigation Deptt. Govt of Orissa v. G.C. Roy; (2004) 5 SCC 65 Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, and (2009) 8 SCC 507. Srl. Venkateswara Syndicate v Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.]. The object behind awarding interest to a party, who has suffered loss, due to a legitimate deprivation of the enjoyment of the use of money that he was entitled to rightfully, is to balance the equities and while doing so, the facts involved in each case must be examined by the Court."

34. This Court is also of the view that since the amount deposited by the respondents has not 3 WRIC No. 10379 of 2025 been remitted to the petitioner as yet despite his request to close the account, the respondents would also be liable to pay interest on the balance outstanding as on 01.04.2018 as confirmed to the petitioner (Rs: 23,83,912/-), till the date of payment. This Court is also informed that the interest on the PPF Account has been fixed at the rate of 7.6% for the period 01.04.2018 to

30.09.2018 and 8% per annum for the period, thereafter. The petitioner would also be entitled to interest at the sald rates.

35. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to close the PPF Account as requested by the petitioner and remit the amount of Rs. 23,83,912/-, as was reflected in the petitioner's passbook as on 01.04.2018, alongwith further interest calculated at the rate of 7.6% on the said amount from 01.04.2018 to 30.09.2018 and 8% per annum for the period thereafter till the date of payment."

5. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has produced his instructions which is taken on record. He submits that the rate of interest on HUF accounts was not payable for these three years, as the PPF account for HUF could not have been continued subsequent to the year 2021.

6. We have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the judgment placed before us. We are consensus ad idem with the view that once the Government continues to receive the money in the PPF account, it is clear that the Government would be using the money and earning interest from the same. It is, therefore, obligatory for the Government to make payment of interest on the same.

7. Furthermore, in the present case, the interest was duly credited to the account of the petitioner, as shown in the passbook. The present stand that the interest was not payable is nothing but a vague statement, to say the least, and cannot be countenance by us.

8. In light of the same, we are of the view that the writ petition should be allowed and the authorities are accordingly directed to pay the interest amount of Rs. 3,72,829/- payable for the financial years 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23, along with the interest @ 6% for the delayed payment of the interest indicated above till the date of making of payment, within a period of eight weeks from date. 4 WRIC No. 10379 of 2025

9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. November 28, 2025 Lokesh Kumar (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. The prayers in the present writ petition are delineated below:- "(I.) To issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, setting aside the impugned letter dated 01.02.2025 and the impugned communication dated 29.03.2025, contained in Annexure No. 1 and 2, respectively, to the instant writ petition, whereby the Petitioner was denied the amount of Rs. 3,72,829/-, i.e., the interest which had already accrued for the financial year 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23. (II.) To issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to the Respondents directing them to pay the Petitioner the amount of Rs. 3,72,829/-, which has been wrongfully withheld by the Respondents, along with interest thereon as per the highest applicable rate of interest on PPF (HUF) accounts for the period during which the Respondents have retained the amount due to the petitioner till the time such payment is made to the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the PPF account, he was depositing money on a regular basis and the interest that was accruing was showing in the said passbook. However, the respondent-authorities have now, after a very long time, held that the interest for three financial years being 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23, as has been indicated in the passbook, is not payable to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on a 2 WRIC No. 10379 of 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Balkrishan Malhotra Vs. Department of Post and others, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del. 9249, wherein Justice Vibhu Bakhru (as he then was) has dealt with an identical issue and held as follows:- "31. It is apparent from the above that the money collected by the Government through deposits in small savings schemes is channelized into the economy of our country and the Government also receives interest on such investments. The said utilization of public money by the Government puts them under a lawful obligation to repay the subscribers the principal amount along with Interest, as the aforesaid utilization of public money by the Government is in the form of investment and the public, being the fund providers, are entitled to receive a return on such investment both in principal and Interest.

32. In the present case, the petitioner has continued to make deposits in his PPF Account even after 31.03.2013 (the maturity date) and till April, 2017 (On 19.04.2017, the petitioner made the final deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the PPF Account). The respondents, on the other hand have, admittedly, falled to close the petitioner's PPF account and continued to accept deposits. The said deposits along with the interest on such deposits, have also been reflected in the passbook and the statements of accounts. Undisputedly, the said amounts, deposited In the PPF Account of the petitioner, have been utilized (invested) by the Government. Clearly, the petitioner is entitled to receive the interest for such deposits (Investment) made by him and he cannot be deprived of this entitlement on account of an error/irregularity/omission on part of the respondents.

33. In Varinder Jeet Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2013) 134 DRJ 284, a coordinate bench of this Court held as under: "15. It is settled law that if a person is deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled, he has a right to be monetarily compensated for the sald deprivation. [Ref, (1992) 1 SCC 508 Secretary, Irrigation Deptt. Govt of Orissa v. G.C. Roy; (2004) 5 SCC 65 Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, and (2009) 8 SCC 507. Srl. Venkateswara Syndicate v Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.]. The object behind awarding interest to a party, who has suffered loss, due to a legitimate deprivation of the enjoyment of the use of money that he was entitled to rightfully, is to balance the equities and while doing so, the facts involved in each case must be examined by the Court."

34. This Court is also of the view that since the amount deposited by the respondents has not 3 WRIC No. 10379 of 2025 been remitted to the petitioner as yet despite his request to close the account, the respondents would also be liable to pay interest on the balance outstanding as on 01.04.2018 as confirmed to the petitioner (Rs: 23,83,912/-), till the date of payment. This Court is also informed that the interest on the PPF Account has been fixed at the rate of 7.6% for the period 01.04.2018 to

30.09.2018 and 8% per annum for the period, thereafter. The petitioner would also be entitled to interest at the sald rates.

35. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to close the PPF Account as requested by the petitioner and remit the amount of Rs. 23,83,912/-, as was reflected in the petitioner's passbook as on 01.04.2018, alongwith further interest calculated at the rate of 7.6% on the said amount from 01.04.2018 to 30.09.2018 and 8% per annum for the period thereafter till the date of payment."

5. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has produced his instructions which is taken on record. He submits that the rate of interest on HUF accounts was not payable for these three years, as the PPF account for HUF could not have been continued subsequent to the year 2021.

6. We have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the judgment placed before us. We are consensus ad idem with the view that once the Government continues to receive the money in the PPF account, it is clear that the Government would be using the money and earning interest from the same. It is, therefore, obligatory for the Government to make payment of interest on the same.

7. Furthermore, in the present case, the interest was duly credited to the account of the petitioner, as shown in the passbook. The present stand that the interest was not payable is nothing but a vague statement, to say the least, and cannot be countenance by us.

8. In light of the same, we are of the view that the writ petition should be allowed and the authorities are accordingly directed to pay the interest amount of Rs. 3,72,829/- payable for the financial years 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23, along with the interest @ 6% for the delayed payment of the interest indicated above till the date of making of payment, within a period of eight weeks from date. 4 WRIC No. 10379 of 2025

9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. November 28, 2025 Lokesh Kumar (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench