Meghnath Singhor v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.4479 OF 2019 Meghnath Singhor S/o Late Shri Gaj Lal Singhor Aged About 58 Years R/o Motipur, Post - Sankra, Tehsil - Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Revenue Department Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Collector, Land Record Section, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :

Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 24.06.2019

1. Though the petitioner has filed this petition claiming for DPF amount and also the amount under the Family Welfare Fund and Subsistence Allowance not paid to the petitioner during the period of his suspension between 11.10.2002 to 09.02.2007, but this court is of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner for Subsistence Allowance for the aforesaid period and also the claim for Family Welfare Fund is not sustainable for the reason that the petitioner has been convicted in a criminal case under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act which has attained its finality by now as the Appeal of the petitioner before the High Court as well as before the Supreme Court has already been rejected.

2. However, so far as claim of the petitioner for DPF amount is concerned, this court is of the opinion that let the respondent No.2 verify the fact that whether in the DPF account pertaining to the petitioner there is contribution made from the salary of the petitioner to the said account and whether the rules/regulations pertaining to DPF envisages release of the same on termination from service. Let the respondent No.2 take a

decision at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

3. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion so far as entitlement of the petitioner in respect of DPF amount is concerned. The respondent No.2 is expected to decide the same purely in accordance with rules and regulations governing the field.

4. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise the respondent No.2 so far as order passed by this court is concerned.

5. The present writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder