Judgment:
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Lal Babu Lal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. P. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The grievance of petitioner, in short, is that he retired from the post of Junior Engineer on 30.9.2002 but the respondents paid the amount of his provident fund only on 28.3.2005 to the tune of Rs. 8,98,943 but no interest on the aforesaid amount was paid from the date of retirement till the actual payment. In para 11 of the writ petition he has categorically asserted that on delayed payment of 30 months no interest on the amount of provident fund has been paid to him.
3. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit and in reply to para 11 of the writ petition it is stated in para 6 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner is not entitled to receive any interest as per his claim on account of his own default. Thereafter, in para 6 of the counter-affidavit they have given reference to some orders passed by certain authorities and the first one is that of 30.4.2004. In the entire reply contained in para 6 of the counter-affidavit this Court fails to find any reason attributable to petitioner for non-payment of the above amount within a reasonable time after his retirement.
4. Moreover, the amount of G.P.F. is entitled for statutory interest under the Rules till actual payment is made but it appears that in the present case after the date of retirement till the date of actual payment on the amount of G.P.F. no interest has been paid as admitted by the respondents in para 6 of the counter-affidavit. Deprecating the attitude of the authorities in harassing its retired employees with respect to payment of their retiral dues and in particular, the provident fund, and non-payment of interest on highly delayed payments, a Division Bench of this Court in Kunwar Bahadur Saxena v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2007 (8) ADJ 553 : 2008 (6) AWC 5447 (LB), has observed as under:
Interest on the amount. of provident fund is not only compensatory but is a statutory liability of the respondents to pay the same for the reason that the amount deducted from the petitioner's salary remain with the respondents and they may have utilized the same for their own purpose hence entitling the petitioner for payment of interest on the said amount. Had the amount of provident fund been paid in time to the petitioner, he could have invested the same for better utilization so as to live an honourable life after retirement in the absence of any other source of earning livelihood. The attitude and conduct of the respondents borne out from the record is nothing but is reprehensible and should be condemned in strongest words. It is no doubt true that an employer for just and valid reasons and in exercise of power vested in it can defer or deny pension and other retiral benefits to an employee provided the action of the employer is in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law and such a power also emanates from statute or the relevant provisions having force of law. In our system, the Constitution being supreme, yet the real power vest in the people of India since the Constitution has been enacted 'for the people, by the people and of the people'. A public functionary cannot be permitted to act like a dictator causing harassment to a common man and in particular when the person subject to harassment is his own ex-employee who has served for a long time and has earned certain benefits under the rules recoverable after attaining the age of superannuation. Pension and retiral benefits are not bounty but right of an employee crystallized in deferred wages to which he is entitled under the rules after retirement and non-payment thereof is clearly violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it becomes more important for the public functionaries and the authorities to act with better sense of responsibility so that their ex-employee may not be subject to harassment at the old age when they have already retired and have to survive and maintain themselves and their family with the meagre amount payable in the form of retiral benefits. The respondents being a State Government and function through its officers appointed in various department is suppose to discharge his duty strictly in accordance with law as observed under our Constitution, sovereignty vest in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery therefore is obliged to be people oriented. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour. It is high time that this Court should remind the respondents that they are expected to perform in a more responsible and reasonable manner so as not to cause undue and avoidable harassment to the public at large and in particular their ex-employees like the petitioner. The respondents have the support of the entire machinery and the various powers of the statute and an ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match such might of the State or its instrumentalities. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impressible. This may harm the common man personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption, thrive and prosper in society due to lack of public resistance. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting mostly succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. It is on account of, sometimes, lack of resources or unmatched status which give the feeling of helplessness. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system. This is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention are being allowed to linger on and remain unattended. No authority can allow itself to act in a manner which is arbitrary. Public administration no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields action of administrative authority but where it is found that the exercise of power is capricious or other than bona fide, it is the duty of the Court to take effective steps and rise to the occasion otherwise the confidence of the common man would shake. It is the responsibility of the Court in such matters to immediately rescue such common man so that he may have the confidence that he is not helpless but a bigger authority is there to take care of him and to restrain the arbitrary and arrogant unlawful inaction or illegal exercise of power on the part of the public functionaries.
In a democratic system governed by rule of law, the Government does not mean a lax Government. The public servants hold their offices in trust and are expected to perform with due diligence particularly so that their action or inaction may not cause any undue hardship and harassment to a common man Whenever it comes to the notice or this Court that the Government of'' its officials have acted with gross negligence and unmindful action causing harassment of a common and helpless man, this Court has never been a silent spectator but always reacted to bring the authorities to law.
5. The amount of provident fund is not which is to be paid by the employer on their own but this money belongs to the employee himself and remain for a long time with the employer on the condition that the statutory rate of interest shall be paid thereon so that it sub serve like a compulsory saving which would be available to the employee. The respondents have used the above money for almost 30 months but have not paid any interest thereon though in law they were liable for the same. In the absence of any plausible reason in the counter-affidavit, the delayed payment of G.P.F. and non-payment of interest thereon to the petitioner is clearly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to the statutory interest payable on the amount of G.P.F. from the date of retirement till the actual payment. He would also be entitled to penal interest which would be at the rate of 6% over and above the amount which would be calculated adding principal amount as well as the amount of statutory interest. The petitioner shall also be entitled for cost which is quantified to Rs. 25,000. However, it is open to the respondents to conduct appropriate inquiry in the matter and realise the amount of interest, penal interest and cost from such official who is found responsible for such delayed payment as well as non-payment of interest.