C.F. CASE No.          : CC/09/58                                                                                                         

COMPLAINANT             :  Somen Chakraborty,

2, Gobindanagar,

P.O. Madanpur, Dist. Nadia 

Pin – 741 243

 

       –  Vs  – 

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs   : 1.  The Chairman,

State Bank of India, Corporate Centre,

State Bank Bhaban, Madam Came Road,

Mumbai – 400 021 

 

             : 2. The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, Samriddhi Bhaban,

1, Strand Road, Kolkata – 700 001

 

             : 3.  Asstt. General Manager,

PPG Department,

State Bank of India,

6th Floor, Samriddhi Bhaban,

1, Strand Road, Kolkata – 700 001

 

              :4. The Asstt. General Manager (Operation)

State Bank of India,

Bidhannagar Zonal Office

CIT Scheme No. VIIM

VIP Road, Kolkata – 700054

 

              :5.  The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India, Ranaghat Branch,

Swami Vivekananda Sarani, 

Ranaghat, Nadia, Pin – 721201.

 

 

 

PRESENT              :  KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY             PRESIDENT

        :  KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY          MEMBER

        :  SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA       MEMBER

 

DATE OF DELIVERY             

OF  JUDGMENT               :    4th December, 2009.

Page 2 of 4

:    J U D G M E N T    :

 

In brief, the case of the complainant is that he retired from the service of the State Bank of India at its Ranaghat Branch on 30.04.07.  At the time of retirement his provident fund amount being Rs. 11,47,721/- was with the OP Bank and that amount was paid to him on 02.07.07.   But as per State Bank circular, he is entitled to get overdue interest for the delayed period of 62 days on the above said provident fund amount which was not paid to him.  So he requested the Chief Manager, SBI, Ranaghat by sending a letter dtd. 23.07.07 to sanction him interest on the above said amount for 62 days.  The Local Head Office referred the matter to the Zonal Office, but to no effect.  Though several correspondences were done by him till date the interest accrued for the 62 days is not paid to him.  So having no other alternative, he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in this petition of the complaint.

 

Summons were duly served upon the OPs and they appeared and prayed for time to file written version.  So many dates were allowed, but ultimately no written version is filed by the OPs.   So the case is taken up for exparte hearing.  

 

POINTS  FOR  DECISION

Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?

Point No.2:        Has he become able to prove his case?

Point No.3:      Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

 

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

All the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience. 

Page 3 of 4

On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint along with the annexed documents it is available on record that this complainant retired from service on 30.04.07 from the office of the OP No. 5.  It is also available on record that the complainant had the balance in his provident fund account amounting to Rs. 11,47,721/-.  After deducting outstanding dues the Bank Authority credited Rs. 9,07,599.02 to his Savings Bank Pass Book Account (State Pension Account) No. 0119009467500 at Ranaghat Branch on 02.07.07.  So from this document it is clear that their was a delay of 62 days in crediting the provident fund amount to his account for which he has claimed interest @ 6% per annum.  In this connection,  Ld. lawyer for the complainant has drawn our attention that according to Provident Fund Rules framed by SBI Employee's Provident Fund Rules in which it is laid down “In order to mitigate the hardship caused by the unavoidable delays that occur in refunding the balances of Provident Fund to the employees who leave the Bank's service by way of retirement or resignation, interest, at the rate as applicable to the Provident Fund Account, calculated at half-early rests, shall be paid on their Provident Fund balances, after the date of the employees ceasing to be in the Bank's service.”

On a careful perusal of the provision of law we find that the complainant is entitled to get interest on the provident fund amount for 62 days.   He has also claimed interest up to 31.10.09 till the date the interest amount as claimed by him was not disbursed by the Bank Authority.  From Annexure – 8, it is available that by a letter dtd. 20.10.09 the Bank Authority sanctioned an amount of Rs. 8,553/- as overdue interest on delayed settlement of provident fund dues in favour of the complainant, i.e., during pendency of this case.   So it is clear to us that the Bank Authority has accepted the allegation of delayed settlement of the provident fund amount belonging to the complainant.  In view of the above discussions, we are inclined to hold that the complainant is entitled to get interest upon the provident 

Page 4 of 4

fund amount of Rs. 9,07,599.02 @ 6% per annum for the period of 62 days (01.05.07 to 01.07.07) amounting to Rs. 9250/- + interest for 914 days (May, 07 to Oct, 09), i.e., Rs. 1390/- which is the interest upon Rs. 9250/-.   Thus, in total the interest amount stands at Rs. 9250/- + Rs. 1390/- = Rs. 10640/-.  He is also entitled to get Rs. 3,000/- for compensation towards mental harassment caused to him + Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost.  In result the case succeeds.  

Hence,

Ordered,

That the case, CC/09/58 be and the same is decreed against the OPs exparte.  The complainant is entitled to get a decree of Rs. 10640/- + compensation of Rs. 3,000/- + litigation cost Rs. 1,000/-, i.e., in total Rs. 14,640/-.  The OPs are directed to make payment of the decretal dues to this complainant within a period of two months since this date failing which the complainant is entitled to get interest upon the decretal dues @ 9% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.