JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a) to issue a writ of certiorari or direction in nature thereof, quashing the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 being Annexure P-1 of the writ petition, as unconstitutional and illegal and contrary to the law; (b) to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondent department to release entire GPF accrued in the account of the petitioner uptodate with all consequential beneftts for all purposes and intents alongwith interest thereon @ 18% pa.” 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State and learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner, who was serving as a Class-IV employee, in the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Una, District Una, H.P., retired from the said Office on 31.08.2024, as a Peon. According to the petitioner, in terms of Annexure P-2, which is petitioner’s statement of the Provident Fund Account for the year ending 2023-2024, the closing balance shown in his GPF Account was Rs.8,92,177/- as in the month of March, 2024, yet in terms of Annexure P-1, only an amount of Rs.5,08,784/- was released in his favour, thus, depriving him of the total GPF amount, which he was entitled to. 4. The stand of respondent No.3 is that the GPF final payment case of the petitioner was received from the respective Department, vide letter dated 02.07.2024, and while calculating final GPF payment, it was discovered that though, closing balance of the petitioner in the financial year 1998-1999 was Rs.19,844/-, but in his GPF Account pertaining to the year 1999-2000, the same was inadvertently mentioned as Rs.58,212/- thus, resulting in an additional amount of Rs.38,368/- being erroneously mentioned therein, upon which perpetual interest was paid, which resulted in a total difference to the tune of Rs.2,87,499/- over the span of 24 years, which the petitioner was not entitled to. According to the respondents, this was a clerical mistake and subsequently, the same was corrected, as it was within the domain of the Department to correct the same within three months from the date of receipt of the Statement. According to the respondents, this was a clerical mistake and subsequently, the same was corrected, as it was within the domain of the Department to correct the same within three months from the date of receipt of the Statement. It is further the stand of respondent No.3 that in terms of Rule 39 (2), every subscriber should satisfy himself as to the correctness of the annual statement of the GPF and, therefore also, as the petitioner stood paid what he was entitled to, it was not as if any recovery has been effected from the petitioner. Excess amount, which was not payable to the petitioner only stood adjusted at the time of release of GPF amount in terms of Annexure P-1. 5. This Court is of the considered view that in this case Annexure P-2, in terms whereof, the closing balance reflected in the GPF Account of the petitioner was Rs.8,92,177/- should have been honoured by the respondents and for the acts of omission and commission, if any, of the respondents, the petitioner could not have been made to suffer by releasing a lesser amount than what was reflected in Annexure P-2. Even, if it is to be assumed that there was some mistake committed at the end of respondent No.3, said mistake even in terms of the reply filed by the said respondent, was committed as far back as in the year 1999-2000 and the Authorities had ample time to rectify the same, but they waited till the superannuation of the petitioner to do so. Therefore also, as Annexure P-2 demonstrated that the petitioner was entitled to a particular amount, a lesser amount could not have been released in his favour without adhering to the principles of natural justice. 6. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this petition is allowed and act of the respondents of releasing a lesser amount of General Provident Fund (GPF) to the petitioner, than as reflected in Annexure P-2, is held to be bad. The respondents are directed to release the balance amount of the Provident Fund to the petitioner within a period of three months from today, failing which the same shall entail interest @ 6% per annum, as from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of its realization. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.