V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL) 1. The complainants/private respondents opened PPF accounts with the petitioners/State Bank of India, on different dates. The said accounts were governed by Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968, issued by the Government of India, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 3 of the Public Provident Fund Act of 1968. As per the Scheme, an individual could subscribe upto Rs.70,000/- in a year in the aforesaid account. The scheme, before its amendment on 13-05-2005 also permitted an HUF, to open such an account and make deposits in the said account out of the income of the HUF. Clause 9 (3) of the Public Provident Fund Scheme 1968 provided forclosure of the account after expiry of 15 years from the end of the year in which the initial subscription was made by the subscriber, by applying in Form C or as near thereto as possible for the withdrawal of the entire balance standing to the credit of the subscriber along with passbook. The Accounts Office, on receipt of such an application was required to allow the withdrawal of the entire balance together with interest till the last date of the month, preceeding the month in which the application was made. Sub-Rule 3(A) of clause 9 of the scheme permitted the subscriber to exercise an option to continue to subscribe for a further block period of five years, by filling up Form H on the expiry of 15 years from the end of the year in which the initial subscription was made, but before the expiry on one year thereafter. Thus as per the Scheme, before it came to be amended on 13-05-2005 an HUF could also open a PPF account and make contribution upto Rs.70,000/- per year. The HUF could also apply for extension of the scheme for a further block period of five years by exercising an option in Form H provided that such an option was exercised within one year from the date on which the account could have been closed under clause 9(3). 2. Vide notification dated 13-05-2005, the afore-referred Scheme came to be amended by the Government. As a result of the amendment an HUF or an association of persons did not remain eligible to open a PPF account. 3. The complainants/private respondents before us are various HUFs, and as noted earlier, they had opened PPF Accounts with State Bank of India and made contribution from time to time. The PPF Accounts opened by one of them matured on 31-03-2005, the PPF account opened by three of them matured on 31-03-2004 whereas the PPF Account opened by one of them matured on 31-03-2007. However, they made deposits in the aforesaid accounts even after their respective accounts had matured in terms of clause 9(3) of the Scheme. The complainants, however, did not fill up Form H which was required for the purpose of continuing the accounts even after maturity. 4. Pursuant to the notification dated 13-05-2005 issued by the Government of India, the State Bank of India also issued a circular dated 10-06-2005, stating therein that the accounts opened by juristic persons such as HUF on or before 13-05-2005 under any of the small savings scheme including Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968 shall be treated as void ab initio and the deposits shall be refunded to the depositors without any interest. It was, however, clarified that the amendment shall not be applicable to the existing accounts opened in accordance with the rules. Such accounts were to continue till maturity but any extension of such accounts was to be subject to the amendment dated 13-05-2005. 5. Earlier SBI had issued notification 20-08-1986 stating therein that the subscriber will have to exercise option in Form H within one year of the date of maturity of accounts and if he fails to do so and continues to makes deposits such deposits shall be treated as illegal. 6. Consequent to the amendment made by the Government of India to the scheme, the money which the complainants/private respondents had deposited in their respective PPF Accounts were refunded to them but no interest was paid to them after the date of maturity of the accounts which was 31-03-2004 in one case, 31-03-2005 in three cases and 31-03-2007 in the fifth case. 7. Being aggrieved from the failure of the petitioners-State Bank of India to pay interest to them for the period after the deposits had matured, the complainants/private respondents approached the concerned District Forum which directed payment of interest to the complainants for the period in question. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioner approached Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by way of separate appeals. The appeals, however, came to be dismissed by the Commission. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before us by way of these revision petitions. 8. During the course of hearing our attention has been drawn to the circular No.F7/4/2008-NSII dated 01-06-2011 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, providing for payment of interest, inter alia, in respect of the accounts which had closed between 13-05-2005 to 07-12-2010. The aforesaid circular, to the extent is relevant reads as under: . Some of the subscribers of PPF (HUF) accounts had closed the accounts on maturity or thereafter between 13th May, 2005 to 07-12-2010 (before the issue of the aforesaid amendment). Some of such account holders, were not paid interest at PPF rates on the deposits retained beyond the maturity period (without further subscriptions). Those subscribers had been representing that interest at PPF may also be paid to them on the deposits that were retained in PPF accounts beyond maturity period. The matter has been examined in this Ministry and it has been decided that interest at PPF rate would be paid on those PPF (HUF) accounts, which had attained the maturity after 13-05-2005 but closed by the subscribers before 07-12-2010 subject to the conditions that the accounts had not been thereafter and the deposits were retained in such accounts without further subscriptions. 9. The first contention of the learned counsel for the complainants is that the subscribers who closed the accounts between 13-05-2005 to 07-12-2010 stand exactly on the same footing on which the subscribers who had closed the accounts prior to the aforesaid period stand. In other words, there is really no difference between those who had closed their accounts prior to 13-05-2005 and those who closed such accounts between 13-05-2005 to 07-12-2010. Therefore, there was no justification or rationale for restricting payment of interest in respect of the deposits made in the matured PPF Accounts to those accounts which had matured and closed between 13-05-2005 to 07-12-2010. In our opinion, the persons whose accounts matured and were consequently closed prior to 13-05-2005 are placed in the same situation in which the persons whose accounts matured between 13-05-2005 to 07-12-2010 stand. Therefore, it would per se discriminatory to deny payment of interest to them while allowing interest to those whose account had matured and closed during the period specified in the circular dated 01-06-2011. For this reason alone, the complainants have rightly succeeded before the fora below and the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. In fact, in one of the cases, the account closed during the period referred in the circular dated 01-06-2011. 10. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The accounts were opened by the complainants, under the scheme, as it stood on the date the accounts were opened. Therefore, the deposits made by them shall be governed by the scheme, as it stood on the date the accounts were opened. The amendment made by the Government vide notification dated 13-05-2005, therefore, would not apply to the accounts of the complainants. The aforesaid circular, in our opinion to the extent it was made applicable to the accounts which had been opened prior to 13-05-2005 was illegal and could not have been given effect. The rights and liabilities of the parties under the Scheme got crystalised on the date the accounts were opened by them. Any subsequent amendment in the Scheme, to their prejudice would not be binding on the account holder. Since the Scheme, as it stood on the date the accounts were opened by the complainants permitted the HUF to extend the accounts for a further block of five years by filling up Form H, the Government by way of a circular dated 13-05-2005 could not have taken away their rights to extend their respective accounts for a further block period of five years. This is yet another reason the complainants must necessarily succeed. 11. The learned counsel for the complainants states on instructions that they had made a deposit in their respective PPF account even after the said account had matured in terms of clause 9(3) of the PPF scheme 1968. Having accepted the deposit after the deposits had matured, it is not open to the petitioners to say that in view of the circular dated 13-05-2005 issued by the Government of India, they would not pay interest to the account holders. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainants, the scheme itself gave them one year time to submit Form H for extension of the deposit for a further block of five years and, therefore, but for the amendment made on 13-05-2005 they would have filled up such forms at any time before expiry of one year from the date on which the deposits had matured. This, however, would be applicable only in two cases because in the remaining three cases the deposits had matured on 31-03-2004 and admittedly Form H was not filled up within one year of the maturity of the deposit. 12. During course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in AIR 2011 SC 2604, A.D. Thirukoil, Palani Vs. Director General of Post Offices, Department of Posts wherein the Apex Court, noticing that the rules did not permit payment of interest, declined to give direction for payment of interest in respect of the deposit which was retained by the post office. The contention of the learned counsel is that since the scheme does not permit payment of interest to the depositors who did not fill up Form H, direction for payment of interest would be contrary to rules. In our view this judgment will be of no help to the petitioners, considering circular dated 13-05-2005 issued by the Government of India, whereby interest has been allowed to the persons whose deposits matured and the accounts were closed between the period specified in the said circular. The benefit/concession which the Government granted to the persons whose deposits matured during the period mentioned in the circular would also be equally available to the complainants before this Court for the simple reason that the depositors of both the categories are similarly situated. 14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petitions are disposed of with the direction that all the complainants shall be entitled to interest at PPF rates applicable during the period relevant to their respective deposits till the time their respective deposits were refunded to them. It would be for the State Bank of India to calculate interest accordingly and pay the same to the complainants/private respondents within eight weeks from today. The complainants shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of interest which in terms of this order, ought to have been paid to them alongwith their respective deposits, but was not paid.