SANJAY MISRA, SUDHIR AGARWAL, JJ. - (1.) HEARD Sri Hamendra Pratap learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri N. K. Seth learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.4.1998 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow dismissing Claim Petition No. 941 of 1996 of the petitioner claiming interest on delayed payment of amount of G.P.F. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Development Officer (Statistics) Panchayat on 28.12.1953 and after getting his due promotions, retired from the post of Assistant Development Project Director on 31.7.1987 after attaining the age of superannuation. He was not paid his amount of Provident Fund and it appears that he was informed that he has not submitted Form No. 425-A as required under Rule 24 of the General Provident Fund Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1985') and, therefore, his claim for payment of provident fund could not have been considered by the authorities concerned. It is stated that the petitioner thereafter submitted Form No. 425-A on 7.6.1988 whereafter 90% of the amount of provident fund was authorised to be paid by letter dated 31st August, 1991 issued by the Competent Authority of the State Government. With respect to balance amount of 10% of the provident fund, the same could not have been paid by the authorities of the State Government until letter of authorisation is issued by the office of the Accountant General, Allahabad which it was issued on 9.2.1993, pursuant whereto payment of 10% balance amount was made to the petitioner on 10th September, 1993. Claiming interest on the delayed amount of provident fund, petitioner filed the aforesaid claim petition which has been dismissed by the Tribunal observing that since the petitioner was himself guilty of delayed submission of Form 425-A, therefore, was not entitled for payment of interest in view of sub-rule (4) of Rule 11 of Rules, 1985.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no deliberate delay or laches on the part of the petitioner in submission of Form 425-A. In fact, the department itself has not completed the provident fund account statement of the petitioner as a result thereof there was no occasion for the petitioner to submit Form 425-A within time. Thus, reasons for delay in submission of aforesaid form was beyond the control of the petitioner. He further stated that even though admittedly Form 425-A was submitted on 7.6.1988 yet 90% of payment was made after more than three years i.e. in August, 1991 and 10% balance amount was made after more than five years i.e. In September, 1993 and therefore, for the aforesaid delayed payment, the petitioner was entitled for interest. He also placed reliance on Rule 11(4) proviso of Rules, 1985 stating that where the delay in submission of requisite application by the employee as required under Rule 24 is beyond control of the employee, in such circumstances, the employee is entitled for payment of interest on the delayed payment of amount of provident fund and it is said that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in failing to consider this aspect of the matter.;