B.S. Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 254 of 2014 B. S. Thakur S/o Late Johari Singh Thakur, Retired Accountant, Block Development Office Pusour, Distt. Raigarh, R/o Village Urga, Post Kudurmal, Police Station Bhaisma, Civil And Revenue Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Social Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, Zero Point, Balouda Bazar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Accountant General, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh

4. The Deputy Collector, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pusour, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 4 :

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondents 2 & 3 :

Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 20.01.2021

1. The dispute in the present writ petition revolves around an amount of Rs.38,000/- which has been deducted from the GPF account of the petitioner showing it to have been withdrawn by the petitioner while he was in service.

2. According to the petitioner, there is no such withdrawal ever made by him and the finding given by the authority seems to be an erroneous finding. The contention of the petitioner is that there appears to be a discrepancy because of two persons by the same name working under the Department. According to the petitioner, his official name is reflected in the service record as B. S. Thakur whereas there is another employee in the same department whose name is also Thakur B. S. and there is all probability that their GPF account must have got interlinked which has given rise to the aforesaid claim of the petitioner.

3. The present is a second round of litigation. The earlier round of litigation was WP No. 3713 of 2003 which was disposed of on 09.04.2008 whereby the matter of the petitioner was ordered to be placed before the Pension Redressal Committee constituted by the State. The said Committee, on verification of the GPF account of the petitioner, has rejected his claim.

4. Today, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the GPF account no. of the petitioner in fact is NMP/11536 and that another GPF account number i.e. CCP/53492 in fact belongs to one Thakur B. S. and not that of the petitioner. He further submits that this fact of there being two persons by the same name and having two different accounts was not taken note of by the Pension Redressal Committee and if these two PF accounts of the aforementioned two persons are scrutinized, the whole dispute itself can be resolved.

5. Given the aforesaid dispute as it stands, this Court is of the opinion that considering the age of the petitioner as on date which is 80 plus, ends of justice would meet if the writ petition at this stage is disposed of

directing the respondents 2, 3 & 5 to scrutinize the contention of the petitioner as regards the GPF account of the two persons i.e. the petitioner whose name is B. S. Thakur and that of another employee whose name is Thakur B. S. and also to verify whether GPF A/c No. NMP/11536 and GPF A/c No. CCP/53492 belong to the same person or two different persons. The Respondents may also call upon the petitioner to put forth his contention if any to establish the aforesaid facts and only thereafter an appropriate decision be taken so far as Rs. 38,000/- which has not been released to the petitioner under the GPF head is concerned. Let this scrutiny be carried out by the respondents 2, 3 & 5 within an outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai