Parmeshwar Patnaik v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5083 of 2021 Parmeshwar Patnaik S/o Mahendra Patnaik Aged About 70 Years Resident Of Near Bhole Mandir , Ward No. 24, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Veterinary Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2.

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

3.

The Deputy Director Veterinary Services , Raigarh , District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner :

Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, G.A.

For Respondent No.2 :

Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 22/09/2021 1.

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

2.

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner working on the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer on crossing the age of superannuation retired from service on 30.06.2011. According to the petitioner, on the date of retirement there was a credit balance of

approximately more than Rs.5,21,000/- in his account and in between from the said amount, there was a withdrawal made at periodical intervals by the petitioner amounting to Rs.3,50,900/-. According to the petitioner, thereafter the balance of amount should had been paid to the petitioner immediately, which though 10 years have lapsed that the petitioner has retired, it has till date not been finalized. 3.

Today when the matter was taken up for hearing on admission, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the correspondence made with the Department show that there was a negative balance in the GPF account of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.34,480/- and for which correspondences have been made for an early deposit of the same. Meanwhile, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 also submits that from the perusal of the GPF account, it appears that there are certain missing entries, the clarification of which is not available and the same would have to be verified from the Department where the petitioner was working. 4.

Given the saids submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to immediately call for the records from the office of the respondent No.3 in respect of the GPF account of the petitioner and on due verification of the same, let an appropriate decision be taken in respect of the GPF amount if any payable to the petitioner, if not what is the actual decision arrived at by the respondents. 5.

The petitioner also would be at liberty to approach the respondents No.2 and 3 to provide all necessary documents available with the

petitioner in respect of the GPF account or the GPF passbook which the petitioner has in his possession explaining the details of the missing entries and other withdrawals, if any, made by the petitioner. 6.

Let all these exercises be completed within an outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved