Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon the respondents to pay the GPF due to the petitioner on account of the services of her husband late Jagdambi Prasad Singh who retired as Block Cooperative Extension Officer, Godda on 31st January 1996. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the family pension to the petitioner with effect from the date of death of her late husband on 25th January 2007 along with interest over the aforesaid amount.
(2.) FROM the submissions of the parties and the statements made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Provident Fund Officer, Godda, it is apparent that the payment of GPF due to the petitioner's husband, was delayed on account of verification from different offices where petitioner's husband was posted, but it has been categorically stated that after getting approval of the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, residual balance of Rs. 2,51,790/ - was found to be payable together with interest up to the month of March 2010 and an authority slip for the said amount was issued in favour of BDO, Sunderpahari for payment to the petitioner vide letter no. 76/Auth. Dated 7th April 2010 (Annexure -G). It is further stated that in total, Rs. 3,72,429/ - has been authorized for payment and all the payable GPF amount with up to date interest till March 2010, has been paid and nothing remains due regarding GPF and in support thereof, a calculation chart is annexed as annexure -H to the said affidavit. From the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, it appears that although, family pension of the petitioner was not started immediately after the death of her husband on 25th January 2007, but after filing of the writ petition, family pension is being regularly paid to the petitioner and she has also been paid arrears of pension from 25th January 2007 to 3rd April 2010. The aforesaid delay occurred as relevant correction in the P.P.O issued by the Accountant General Office was made after sometime. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the penal interest on the delayed payment of pension should be awarded and in support of which, he relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Mosmat Kaushalya Devi vs. State of Jharkhand & ors [2002(1) JLJR 434]. However, from perusal of the said judgment, it appears that the direction therein was made in respect of retiral benefits that if the same are not paid within the stipulated period, respondents should pay interest @5% on such retiral benefits. In the present case, it appears that this writ petition has been preferred in March 2009 and payments have been made by March -April, 2010 in respect of GPF as also the arrears of pension during the pendency of this writ application. These circumstances therefore do not appear to warrant imposition of penal interest over the amounts which have been paid during the pendency of this writ application. The grievance of the petitioner having been satisfied, this writ petition is disposed of as infructuous.;