IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23588 of 2008(G)
1. JOSE K.J., PRINCIPAL (RETD)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.EASWARAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :07/11/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
==============
W.P.(C) NO. 23588 OF 2008 (G)
====================
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner joined service as LPSA in DCMLP School, Appapara,
Thirunelli, Waynad on 14/08/78. He subscribed to the Provident Fund
(PF) with A/C No.D17060 and was making his contributions. While
continuing as LPSA, he applied for the post of HSA(Social Science) against
the vacancies notified by the Public Service Commission and was
eventually advised by the PSC on 8/6/90. Accordingly, he resigned from
the LPSA post and joined as HSA(Social Science). It is seen from Ext.P6
extract of the service book, that on joining as HSA(Social Science) he was
admitted to General Provident Fund w.e.f. June 1991 and his GPF Account
No was Edn.Account No.225230. Petitioner submits that soon thereafter
he made Ext.P1 application for transfer of his accumulated PF dues to his
GPF Account. It is stated that the application was made to the 2nd
respondent, who forwarded the application by Ext.P2 dated 21/8/91.
However, orders were not passed transferring his PF accumulation. In the
meanwhile, petitioner got promoted as Headmaster and thereafter as
Principal and retired from service on 31/3/2008.
2. Before his retirement, on 14/2/2008, petitioner submitted
WPC 23588/08
:2 :
Ext.P3 request to the 3rd respondent for transfer of his PF dues that
accrued during his LPSA service. It is stated that Ext.P3 was submitted
through the 2nd respondent, who forwarded the same to the 3rd respondent
by Ext.P4. Thereupon, he received Ext.P5 from the 3rd respondent. It is
stated that on his appointment as HSA, he was admitted to GPF Account
and that his PF Account as LPSA was closed in May, 1992. It is stated that
since the subscriber applied for transfer of account only after one year
from the date of admission to GPF, he is entitled to interest only for a
period of one year. It is stated that including the amount of Rs.14,400/-
contributed by him, the total amount available for transfer was
Rs.16,128/-. It is thereupon that this writ petition has been filed.
3. Counsel for the petitioner relying on Rule 14(4) of Chapter
XXX KER and the decision of this Court in Subraya Bhat v. State of
Kerala (1999(2) KLT 362) contended that since within the one year of
his admission to GPF, he had applied for transfer of his accumulation in the
PF Account and as the delay in transferring the amount was not
attributable to him, he is entitled to interest till the date of transfer of the
accumulated amount.
4. A statement has been filed the respondents. According to
them, Ext.P1 was forwarded by the AEO to the DPI and at any rate has not
WPC 23588/08
:3 :
been received by the PF officer concerned. It is stated that the first
communication requesting for transfer that the 3rd respondent received is
Ext.P3. It is stated that since Ext.P3 request was made beyond one year
period of the petitioner’s resignation or even the admission to the GPF, his
entitlement for interest is confined only for a period of one year. It is
therefore submitted that the legitimate amount that was due to the
petitioner including the interest is only Rs.16,128/- and that the same has
already been transferred and has merged in the GPF account.
5. The Rule that is relevant in so far as the transfer of the PF
accumulation is concerned is Rule 14(4) of Chapter XXX KER. Proviso to
Rule 14(4)(i) says that in cases mentioned in Clause(1) of Rule 14(4),
application for closure of PF or the request for the transfer to other PF
should be submitted to the departmental authorities within a period of one
year from the date necessitating the closure or transfer and that while
forwarding the application to the Accounts Officer (PF), the Departmental
Officer shall specify the date of receipt of the application by him. Rule 14
(4)(ii) says that if application for closure or transfer of balance to other PF
is received by the Departmental Officer after the period of one year
stipulated in Rule 14(4), interest shall be admissible only upto a period of
one year from the crucial date necessitating closure of the account.
WPC 23588/08
:4 :
Therefore the application of the subscriber to the PF account who wants to
get the accumulation transferred to another PF account is made to the
Departmental Authority within a period of one year from the date
necessitating closure or transfer. On receipt of such application, the
Departmental Officer shall forward the application to Accounts Officer (PF),
specifying the date of receipt of such application by him. The Rule also
provides that if the application for closure or transfer is received beyond
the period of one year of the date necessitating the transfer or closure,
interest shall be admissible only for a period of one year from the crucial
date.
6. In this case, the petitioner resigned as LPSA and appears to
have joined as HSA on 8/6/90. As is seen from Ext.P6, he was admitted to
GPF w.e.f. June 1991 with Account Number -GPF Edn.No.225230. Only on
admission to GPF, could he have made an application for transfer of his
accumulation to that account. Petitioner submits that Ext.P1 is the request
that has been made. True, Ext.P1 does not bear any date. But then,
admittedly this has been received by the Departmental authority, viz. the
2nd respondent and by Ext.P2, he has forwarded this to the DP1. Although
he had the obligation to have specified the date of receipt of Ext.P1 and
forward the same to Accounts Officer (PF), neither has be specified the
WPC 23588/08
:5 :
date nor has he forwarded the same to the Accounts Officer (PF), but has
forwarded Ext.P2 to the DPI. Failure on the part of the 2nd respondent in
complying with statutory requirements, cannot work out prejudice to the
petitioner.
7. Be that as it may, fact remains that Ext.P2 forwarding Ext.P1
is dated 21/8/91. If that be so, the request made was well within the one
year of the petitioner’s admission to GPF, which was only in June, 1991.
Despite all this, the transfer has been effected only in 2008 and the
justification of the Department is that Ext.P3 is the only request that has
been received. In the statement, they have no case that Exts. P1 and P2
were not received. If that be so, even if it is assumed for the sake of
argument that the 2nd respondent has sent it to a wrong authority, that
wrong authority had the obligation to forward it to the correct authority.
Even otherwise, the mistake of the 2nd respondent cannot result in
pecuniary loss to the petitioner.
8. For all these reasons, I am not satisfied that the petitioner
should suffer for the total inaction on the part of the Departmental
authorities in processing the request of the petitioner for transferring his
PF accumulation. The further question is whether the one year limit
provided in Rule 14(4)(ii) will come to the detriment of the petitioner. In
WPC 23588/08
:6 :
my view it cannot and that position is seen answered by this court in
Subraya Bhat v. State of Kerala (1999 (2) KLT 362) where following
the Apex Court’s judgment, it has been held that if delay has occurred on
account of the fault of the departmental authorities, the liability for interest
cannot be confined to the one year period specified in Rule 14(ii) of
Chapter XXX KER. If that be so, the necessary conclusion is that until the
amount is transferred to the GPF account of the petitioner, the petitioner is
entitled to interest on Rs.14,400/-, the balance accumulation that he had
in his PF Account No.D17069/.
9. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
respondents to grant interest to the petitioner, at the rate as applicable,
on the accumulated amount less interest, that was transferred to the
petitioner’s GPF Account No.Edn.225230.
This shall be done by the respondents, as expeditiously as possible,
at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp