Ratan Lal Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 693 of 2013 Ratan Lal Dewangan S/o Mahram Dewangan Aged About 65 Years Retired Head Master, Primary School Khalepara, Block Development Bakawan, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar, R/o Village Dhodrepal, Post Chhote Dadara, Via and Police Station Asna, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. District Education Officer Bastar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh

3. Block Education Officer, Bakawand, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh

4. Office of the Accountant General, Chhattisgarh State, Tatiband, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Vishnu Koshta, Advocate For State :

Mr. Adhiraj Surana, Dy. G.A.

For Respondent No.4 :

Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 25/04/2018

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been working as a Headmaster and retired from service on 10.04.2010, but the GPF amount payable to the petitioner on his retirement has not been paid to him. According to the petitioner, on the date of retirement, the passbook, which was available with the petitioner, showed a balance of an amount of Rs.2,28,044/- to his credit.

2. The petitioner has made a representation in this regard to the respondents, however in turn, the respondents issued an order on 31.03.2012 stating that an amount of Rs.6,48,442/- is on the contrary recoverable from the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner had filed the present writ petition.

3. The respondents No.1 to 3/the State have now filed a return in the present

writ petition stating that subsequently the P.F. account of the petitioner was reconsidered and it was found that there was only a deficit balance of Rs.38,286/- to be recoverable from the petitioner.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even this assessment made by the respondents is erroneous as, according to his passbook, the amount payable to him was Rs.2,28,044/-.

5. Given the said nature of dispute, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the matter of the petitioner can be placed before the High Power Committee constituted by the State Government for redressal of dispute so far as the pension and the retiral dues are concerned.

6. It is directed that let the High Power Committee consider the case of the petitioner and in the course of consideration they shall call upon the original GPF passbook maintained with the employer, so also the GPF passbook maintained in the office of the Accountant General and the record which is available with the petitioner and shall scrutinize the entire service record to ascertain the actual amount of GPF payable on the date of retirement to the petitioner.

7. Let this exercise be done by the High Power Committee within a period of 3 months from the date of certified copy of this order is placed before the Committee. The Committee is also directed to ensure that while scrutinizing the documents, the petitioner also shall be given an opportunity to submit his contentions along with the relevant records, if any.

8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved