1 2025:CGHC:54698 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 196 of 2023 Chandrasai Manjhi S/o Late Shri Manbodh Manjhi, Aged About 65 Years Retired Head Master, R/o Village Kejuwa, Post And Tahsil Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Education, Mahandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Accountant General, Zero Point Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer, Block Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1, 3 & 4 : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 10.11.2025 1 The petitioner has filed this petition with the following relief(s):- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to grant YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.11 18:50:26 +0530 2 interest on 9,22,404/- from 01.11.2019 to date of payment 17.03.2021 and on the amount of Rs. 1,60,439/- from 01.11.2019 to 16.06.2021 @ prevailing in the GPF rules, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner superannuated from the post of Head Master, Middle School on 30.06.2019. As on 31.03.2019, his General Provident Fund account reflected a closing balance of Rs.10,37,671/-. However, the respondents issued an authority letter sanctioning only Rs.9,22,404/- by computing interest merely up to 30.10.2019. The authority letter dated 30.10.2019 has been brought on record as Annexure P-2. It is submitted that the said calculation was patently erroneous. Upon the petitioner making a representation, the respondents issued a revised authority letter sanctioning an additional sum of Rs.1,60,439/-, yet even in this amended sanction, interest was granted only up to October 2019. He submits that despite issuance of both authority letters, the sanctioned amounts were not released to the petitioner. The petitioner was compelled to submit repeated representations dated 09.12.2020, 24.12.2020, 13.01.2021, 02.02.2021 and 19.03.2021, but no steps were taken by the respondents. 3 3 It is urged that the respondents finally released the amount of Rs.9,22,404/- under the first authority letter only on 17.03.2021, after an inordinate delay of nearly twenty and a half months. Similarly, the sum of Rs.1,60,439/- sanctioned under the amended authority letter was released only on 16.06.2021, after a delay of about twenty-three and a half months. No interest whatsoever was paid for the delayed period beyond 30.10.2019. It is contended that the petitioner thereafter addressed a further representation dated 27.09.2021, requesting grant of interest for the delayed period, but the same has also remained unattended. It is further contended that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment in terms of the prevailing GPF Rules, namely interest on Rs.9,22,404/- for the period from 01.11.2019 to 17.03.2021, and interest on Rs.1,60,439/- for the period from 01.11.2019 to 16.06.2021. Lastly, he submits that the failure of the respondents to release the petitioner’s legitimate GPF dues in time, coupled with the denial of interest for the delayed period, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the petitioner’s constitutional and statutory rights. 4 Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the office of the Accountant General has already issued the requisite authority letter to the State Government for release of the petitioner’s GPF dues, and that the responsibility thereafter rests solely upon the concerned Department to disburse the entire sanctioned amount to the petitioner. It is submitted that the delay, 4 if any, is attributable to the Department and not to respondent No.2. 5 I have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and carefully perused the material available on record. 6 Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner’s GPF dues were sanctioned by the competent authority long back, yet the actual disbursement of the sanctioned amounts was made only after an inordinate and wholly unjustified delay. The record further reflects that despite repeated representations submitted by the petitioner, the authorities failed to take timely steps for release of his legitimate retirement benefits. The petitioner, a retired Head Master, cannot be compelled to run from pillar to post for what is rightfully due to him, nor can he be made to bear the financial burden arising from administrative lethargy. 7 This Court is of the considered view that once the authority letters had already been issued, the respondents were under a statutory and constitutional obligation to ensure prompt payment of the petitioner’s retiral dues. The unexplained delay on the part of the respondents has resulted in clear prejudice to the petitioner, entitling him to compensatory interest on the delayed amounts. The principle is well settled that an employee should not be deprived of interest on delayed payment of pensionary or GPF 5 dues, as such dues constitute not a bounty but a vested right accrued during the course of service. 8 In these circumstances, and in order to balance equities between the parties, this Court deems it proper to direct the respondents to compensate the petitioner for the delay in release of the sanctioned GPF amounts. 9 Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the following directions: (i) The respondents-State shall pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the delayed GPF amounts for the respective periods of delay, as claimed and detailed in the petition. (ii) The aforesaid amount of interest shall be calculated and released to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 10 It is made clear that failure to comply with these directions within the stipulated period shall entitle the petitioner to avail remedies as may be available to him under the law. 11 There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh