Brijesh Kumar, C.J.@mdashThis Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 40(K)/96, dated 25.2.97, allowing the Civil Rule, quashing the orders passed by the State Government dated December 30, 1995, January 30,1996 and September 29, 1994, placing ban on withdrawal of amount from Provident Fund account of a State Government employee. The learned Single Judge also gave certain directions as mentioned in Sub-paras (a) to (d) of paragraph 14 of the judgment. The direction (a) is for lifting the ban with regard to withdrawal/advance of G.P. Fund and the other three directions are more for the purposes of ensuring that the employee has balance in his G.P.F. account and there may be any withdrawal over and above the amount in the balance.
2. The State Government has preferred this appeal against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge.
3. By means of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, three orders of the State Government as indicated in the preceding paragraph, as contained in Annexure-A to C, have been quashed. Annexure-A is dated December 30, 1995. It provides for stopping all State Government payments with immediate effect until further orders except salaries and pensions for December, 1995 onwards. It clarified that no other payment shall be permitted. Annexure-B is dated 30th January, 1996. It provides for certain relaxation in the ban imposed by order dated December 30, 1995. But a perusal of Annexure-B shows that there is no relaxation in so far as it relates to withdrawal of amount from Provident Fund account of an employee. Annexure-C is dated September 29, 1994 which provides that no application for special relaxation of G.P.F. would be entertained till financial position improves. It further provides that no request for withdrawal be forwarded during October, 1994. Aggrieved by imposition of complete ban on withdrawal from G.P.F. account, the Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Association filed a writ petition through its General Secretary. According to the Petitioner under the Rules an employee is entitled to withdraw an amount to the extent of 75% of the deposits in his G.P. Fund account, both as temporary advance and as non-refundable advance. In exceptional cases further withdrawals could also be permitted. The other contention also seems to be that the G.P.F. account is purely of the person concerned who subscribes to it and the States Government is only the custodian of such amount.
4. It has also been noticed that in this connection Rules have also been framed, known as the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). There is no dispute between the parties, rather it is an admitted position that these Rules have been adopted for application to the employees of the State Government as well. Rule 12 of the said Rules deals with advance from the fund. It also appears that advance from the Provident Fund account is regulated by the said provision, indicating the extent to which the amount in deposit can be withdrawn. It also provides the purposes for which the subscriber can make a request for withdrawal of the amount, which, amongst other purposes, includes education of Children, their marriage, or to meet expenditure on other occasions like funerals and to defend oneself in legal proceedings etc. We also find that Rule 15 further deals with the matter relating to withdrawals from the fund by the employee. The case of the Petitioners is that in such circumstances and the position as indicated above, no ban could be placed by the State Government on withdrawal from the Provident Fund account of an employee.
5. The learned Single Judge considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. One of the grounds which seems to have been raised on behalf of the State to justify the ban was that there had been instances where the employees had withdrawn amount in excess of the balance in their Provident Fund accounts, resulting in minus balance in the account of the subscriber. It also seems to have been argued, sometimes the withdrawal was with the connivance of the Treasury and the Accountant General''s staff. The excess withdrawals involving huge amount fell heavily on the State exchequer. Hence it involved matter of public interest. But, blanket ban placed on withdrawal of amount from the Provident Fund account was sought to be justified because of the alleged overdrawals by the subscribers from their accounts. The learned Single Judge while discussing the matter observed that General Provident Fund is not a bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees. G.P.F. is the money belonging to the employees and the State Government is only its custodian. Withdrawal of amount from one''s G.P.F. account is the right of the subscriber, which cannot be curtailed by imposing such blanket ban. The learned Single Judge thereafter taken into account the provisions contained in Rules 12 and 15 of the Rules permitting advances-refundable and non-refundable-from the Provident Fund account and the purposes for which these withdrawals could be made.
6. In our view, it has been rightly observed by the learned Single judge that it is a matter of common knowledge that the government servants conserve fund in the form of G.P.F. to meet the eventualities and unforeseen circumstances as enjoined under Rule 15 and Rule 12 of the Rules. Hence, the subscriber cannot be denied his right to withdraw the amount from the G.P. Fund account as provided in Rules 12 and 15 of the Rules. We may also like to observe that the amount in the account of Provident Fund of an employee cannot be attached or touched even in execution of a decree of a Civil Court. It remains exempt from being dissipated in satisfaction of a decree.
7. So far as the grievance of the State that there had been overdrawals from the account of Provident Fund, the learned Single Judge has rightly suggested steps to ensure that withdrawal should be permitted only in case there is sufficient and required balance in the account of the subscriber. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that there cannot be any blanket ban or unreasonable limiting the withdrawal of amount from the General Provident Fund account. As observed earlier, the whole thing is regulated by Rules 12 and 15 of the Rules of 1960. It is a statutory provision which prescribes the extent to which the amount from the Provident Fund account can be withdrawn as well as the circumstances under which it may be permissible. We find that the learned Single Judge has nowhere held that the withdrawal or advances from the provident Fund shall not be regulated by the statutory provisions contained under the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960. Once the statutory rules are there regulating the whole thing, we feel, it has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge that a blanket ban could not be placed by the State Government by issuing such orders as contained in Annexures-A, B and C, as indicated in the earlier part of this judgment.
8. The main grievance of the Appellants is in regard to the direction (a) as contained in paragraph 14 of the order of the learned Single Judge. Mr. A.R. Barthakur, the learned Advocate General appearing for the Appellants states that under the instructions of his clients he is authorised to make a statement that now no ban is there against withdrawal of amount by the employees from their Provident Fund accounts. It is further submitted that once an application is moved under the Rules, the same is to be considered and dealt with in accordance with such Rules.
9. We feel, once according to the Appellants themselves there is no ban except that an application for withdrawal has to be considered only in accordance with the statutory provisions as contained under the Rules, there hardly remains any dispute in the matter. We have no good reason to disagree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that no blanket ban could be placed by the State Government by means of executive orders on withdrawals from the Provident Fund accounts of the employees subscribers. If the Government by itself has lifted the ban or now if there is no ban as conveyed to us through the learned Advocate General, Shri A.R. Barthakur, it leads to a situation where there exists no dispute any more. Certainly at the time when the learned Single Judge decided the matter, the blanket directions contained in Annexures-A, B and C to the writ petition were in operation and in our view, they had been rightly quashed.
10. In view of the discussion held above, we find no good reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal with an observation that whatever applications may be pending or moved for withdrawals by the subscriber/employees they shall be dealt with in accordance with the Rules applicable as contained in the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960. No order as to costs.
