1 2026:CGHC:5342 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2871 of 2017 1 - Dhanaram Kashyap S/o Shri Gokul Kashyap, Aged About 68 Years R/o Malda, P. S. Hasaud, District Janjgir Champa, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Regional Commissioner C M P F, Gupteshwar, Shakti Nagar, Civil And Revenue District Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh., Madhya Pradesh 2 - State Bank Of India, Through The Branch Manager, S. B. I. Main Branch Jaijaipur, Post Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Managing Director, S. E. C. L. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Adv. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv For respondent No.2 : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Adv (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 30/01/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking interest on the delayed payment of provident fund (PF) dues from the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was employed as a Mining Sardar in Somna Colliary, Hasdeo Area under respondent No.3, retired on 30.04.2007 upon attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner is entitled to a provident fund amount of Rs.11,54,176/-, which was required to be paid by respondent No.1. After the retirement of the petitioner, respondent No.1 vide its letter 2 dated 10.05.2007, sent the cheque bearing No.970028 dated 30.04.2007 of Industrial Development Bank of India Limited to be deposited in the Account Number of petitioner bearing No. 01190000790 maintained with the respondent No.2. The said letter was sent by registered post with acknowledgment due which was received by respondent No.3 on 15.05.2007. A receipt at stamp was also put in their acknowledgment. Despite this, the petitioner did not receive the said amount. Later on, a communication was made by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 with a prayer that the stop payment of earlier cheque may be made. In response, respondent No.2 replied that the aforementioned cheque was never received. Consequently, a subsequent cheque was issued and delivered to respondent No.2, which was credited to the petitioner’s account on 29.07.2008. He further submits that the petitioner was entitled to receive the said amount of provident fund immediately upon retirement. Due to a miscommunication or administrative error on the part of respondents No.1 & 2, the petitioner was deprived of the said amount from the date of his retirement till 29.07.2008. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to receive suitable interest on the delayed payment. He submits that the respondents No.1 & 2 are shifting the burden of their liability to pay interest on each other. This is an inter se dispute between respondent No.1 and 2 and for that the petitioner may not suffer. Therefore, it is prayed that the interest may be awarded on the said amount calculated from the date of retirement of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that after the petitioner retired on 30.04.2007, immediately a cheque of same date was prepared and sent on 10.05.2007 within a period of 10 days by registered post with acknowledgment due, which has duly been received by respondent No.2 on 15.05.2017 within 15 days of the petitioner’s retirement. Respondent No.1 contends that it performed its obligation in due course and that respondent No.2 has perhaps misplaced the cheque and failed to deposit the same and when this fact was brought to the notice, the communication was made by respondent No.1 to 2 in which a false defence was created by respondent No.2 that the aforesaid cheque was never received by him. Ultimately 3 respondent No.1 requested respondent No.2 to stop payment of the cheque and to issue a new cheque and the same was credited in the account of the petitioner on 29.07.2008. He further submits that for the mistake committed by respondent No.2 / Bank, respondent No.1 can never be held responsible. Even if this Court intends to grant interest over the PF amount, it is the respondent No.2 who would be liable to make the payment of interest. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that though a letter dated 10.05.2007 was received, but it was not containing the cheque. Only when the subsequent communication was made to the respondent No.2 by respondent No.1, it has been stated that the said cheque was never received by respondent No.2. He further submits that as respondent No.2 is a Bank, such mistake could not have been committed by a Bank Official. He submits that if the cheque was appended with letter dated 10.05.2007, there was no occasion for the respondent No.2 not to deposit the same in the account of the petitioner. He submits that respondent No.1 is, in fact, at fault, upon realizing this mistake, respondent No.1 issued a subsequent communication requesting the stop payment of the cheque. Consequently, a new cheque was issued in favour of the petitioner and deposited into the petitioner’s account on 29.07.2008. Accordingly, there is no fault on the part of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any interest, rather, respondent No.1 is liable for the same. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that although the petitioner is entitled to receive the PF at the time of his retirement and from the document appended it appears that the cheque was sent to the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 10.05.2007. Even otherwise the dispute is between respondents No.1 & 2 with regard to payment of interest and no relief is claimed against respondent No.3. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired on 30.04.2007. Likewise, it is undisputed that respondent No.1 is liable to pay the provident fund on the date of retirement of the petitioner. The controversy shown by respondents No.1 & 2 is that respondent 4 No.1 is making an allegation that in due course of time the cheque dated 30.04.2007 was sent to respondent No.2 by registered post with acknowledgment due, and that the same was received by respondent No.2 on 15.05.2007 within 15 days of the petitioner’s retirement. On the other hand respondent No.2 is shifting the burden upon respondent No.1 with regard to payment of interest on the pretext that the said cheque was never received. He further tried to persuade this Court that as the State Bank is a leading Bank in the public Sector, such mistake is impossible. Now the Court has to see as to whether respondent No.1 or 2 is guilty of non-depositing the cheque amount in due course of time. Annexure R-1/1 filed along with return provides details of the cheque dated 10.05.2007, including the amount and the drawee bank. The copy of the acknowledgment due appended with the said letter also indicates that it was received by respondent No.2 on 15.05.2007. It also contains some signature and seal of respondent No.2. Thus, it cannot be said that the letter dated 10.05.2007 was not received by respondent No.2. The defence put forth by respondent No.2 is that in the letter itself there was no enclosure of the cheque, but from the record it does not appear that immediately when the letter was received by respondent No.2, any communication was made by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 indicating therein that they have simply received the letter without there being any cheque enclosed with it. Thus, in the opinion of this Court the defence put forth by respondent No.2 does not appear to be true on correct facts in situation. Apart from this the submissions made by respondent No.1 that there are some communication available on record with regard to earlier cheque sent by them to the petitioner. The record also reflects that an endorsement has been made in the communication that as the earlier cheque was already stopped, no payment on that cheque could be made. The fact remains that respondent No.1 was required to issue a subsequent cheque and it was credited in the account of the petitioner on 29.07.2008. Thus, on account of mistake committed by respondent No.2, the petitioner was deprived of the PF which he could have received within a short span of time after his retirement. In the opinion of this Court, respondent No.2 is responsible for making 5 the delayed payment. Thus it is ordered that interest @ 6% calculated from 16.05.2007 till 29.07.2008 be paid by respondent No.2 to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 8. This writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2026.02.06 11:05:48 +0530