Mahesh Ram Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4166 of 2021 Mahesh Ram Yadav S/o Late Bhagat Ram Yadav, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Village - Tundra, Tahsil - Kasdol, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Accountant General, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Zero Point, Balodabazar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Executive Engineer, Hasdev Canal Water Management Division, Janjgir, District - Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh

4. The Senior Accounts Officer, Office Of Accountant General, Zero Point, Balodabazar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State :

Ms. Abhyunati Singh, P.L.

For Respondents 2 & 4 :

Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 11.08.2021

1. The dispute in the present writ petition seems to be the amount payable to petitioner under GPF.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner referring to Annexure P-2 dated 04.05.2020 shows that there was an amount of Rs.3,32,147/- in his GPF credit. However, vide Annexure P-1, the respondents have ordered for releasing of only Rs. 67633/-.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel representing the office of the Accountant General submits that he has instruction to state that there were certain further correspondences and developments that have transpired subsequently and it is now reflected that the petitioner is yet to get an additional amount of Rs.59,000/-.

4. Be that as it may, the document Annexure P-2 reflects an amount of Rs.3,32,147/- to be in his credit of GPF. The amount of Rs.67,000/- plus the additional amount which according to the respondents is further payable to petitioner would make it only around Rs. 1,25,000/- which is a figure much less than what is reflected in the credit of petitioner. Another aspect which needs consideration is that since the matter pertains to GPF which can only be finalized after due verification of the GPF account maintained with the employer and the one which is maintained in the office of the Accountant General.

5. Given the said facts, the writ petition at this juncture can be disposed of directing the respondents 2 to 4 to immediately get the GPF account of petitioner tallied with the records maintained in the two offices i.e. the office of respondent no.2 and respondent no.3. The respondents 2 & 3 are further directed that while finalizing and scrutinizing the GPF account of petitioner ensure that the petitioner is also noticed and given an opportunity of hearing so that the petitioner also gets an opportunity to substantiate his claim and contention before the authorities. The respondents are also expected to consider the aspect of missing entries and withdrawals, if any, made by the petitioner while finalizing the dues. Let the entire exercise be concluded, after due scrutiny of the two records maintained under

respondent no.2 and respondent no.3, at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai