Sarju Kumar Rawat v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4660 of 2021

1. Sarju Kumar Rawat S/o Late Lakhan Lal, Aged About 64 Years Retired Assistant Grade II, Shiv Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Ward No. 43, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh).

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Commissioner, Higher Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Post Office and Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, Baloda Bazar Road, PO Mandhar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

4. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Durg Division, Durg (Chhattisgarh).

5. District Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

6. Principal, Govt. Naveen College, Aundhi, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Shaleen Singh Baghel, Advocate.

For State :

Shri Jitendra Pali, Dy. Advocate General.

For Respondent No.3 :

Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 06.09.2021.

1. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that though he has retired from service w.e.f. 31.01.2019, till date he has not been issued with the GPF amount payable to him on his retirement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no departmental enquiry or any criminal case pending against the petitioner by which the retiral dues or provident fund amount could be withheld.

3. The counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that it appears that there is negative balance in the provident fund account of the petitioner and therefore he was not entitled for any amount.

-24. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the matter is pertaining to non settlement of GPF amount, the entire issue can be redressed on due scrutiny of the provident fund account of the petitioner. Even if there is a negative balance in the GPF account of the petitioner, an intimation in this regard has not been given to the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondent No.3 so also the respondent No.6 to scrutinize the provident fund dues payable to the petitioner both after the merger of the DPF and also the GPF which has taken in between. Let the respondent No.6 produce all the records of the DPF and GPF of the petitioner to the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 in turn shall duly verify the same and cross check the documents submitted by the respondent No.3 and an appropriate decision be taken on the GPF amount payable to the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order. The respondents No.3 and 6 are also expected to call upon the petitioner to clarify in respect of any recovery or withdrawal made from the said GPF account while in service before finalizing the same.

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