Md. Kasim Khan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 870 of 2021 Md. Kasim Khan S/o Late Farjan Khan Aged About 64 Years R/o Ward No. 36, Mominpura, Near Noorani Masjid, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2.

Executive Engineer Water Resource Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 3.

Accountant General, (Accounts And Entitlement) Zero Point, Baloda Bazar Road, New Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For State :

Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. G.A.

For Respondent No.3 :

Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 03/03/2021 1.

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition seems to be the non-settlement of the Provident Fund dues payable to the petitioner on his retirement.

2.

According to the petitioner, he has retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2018 from the post of a Truck Driver. According to the petitioner, in the passbook that is available with the petitioner, there is a clear credit balance of an amount of Rs.7,24,648/- of which the petitioner on his retirement has got only Rs.2,11,959/-. The petitioner submits that till the date of his retirement there has not been any

recovery proceedings or any claim unsettled on the part of the petitioner on account of which the P.F. amount could had been withheld.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 i.e. the office of the Accountant General drew the attention of the Court to a correspondence made by the Department to the respondent No.2 way back on 16.07.2020 calling upon the respondent No.2 to provide the necessary Provident Fund details of the petitioner, so that the claim of the petitioner could be settled, however according to him there has no further response from the office of the respondent No.2. 4.

The learned State counsel also accepts the fact that the issue involved in the present matter could be settled only on verification of the GPF account of the petitioner with the entries available in the office of the respondent No.2 with that of the GPF account of the petitioner maintained in the office of the respondent No.3. 5.

Given the said submission by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondent No.2 in particular to take immediate steps in ensuring that the GPF account of the petitioner maintained in the office of the respondent No.2 is made available to the office of the respondent No.3, who in turn shall on due verification of the facts. If required the petitioner also can be called, so as to provide necessary further clarification, if any, in the course of settlement of his GPF account. That after due verification of the same, in case if the petitioner is found entitled for any payment, the said amount added with the interest till the date of payment shall be paid to the petitioner

forthwith. It is expected that the entire exercise shall be concluded by the respondents No. 2 & 3 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

6.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved