Prahlad Chanda Rai v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3253 of 2015 Prahlad Chand Rai S/o Late Dr. Mahesh Chandra Rai, aged about 72 years, Retired Headmaster, Primary School, Vishram Nagar, Lutti, Tahsil Balrampur, District Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The District Education Officer, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

3. The Accountant General, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Ashutosh Pandey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 01/05/2018 The limited grievance raised in the present writ petition by the petitioner is that the respondents while settling the GPF amount of the petitioner have not taken into account the services rendered by the petitioner between 1966 to 1990 i.e. the period of his initial appointment under the rehabilitation scheme, before the services of the petitioner finally stood handed over to the respondents. The GPF of the said period was refused by the respondents on account of non-availability of passbook.

2.

The petitioner has not questioned the payment of GPF for the subsequent period i.e. beyond 1990. The only restricted claim of the petitioner now surviving is that of payment of GPF for the period between 1966 to 1990.

3.

So far as the pass book not being available is concerned, the petitioner by way of a rejoinder has been able to provide the photocopy of the passbook that was available with him showing the relevant entries made in the GPF head for all this period.

4.

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, let the respondents 2 & 3 process the passbook which would be made available to them by the petitioner and thereafter they shall forthwith consider the case of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order for releasing of the difference of GPF which till date has not been paid for the period between 1966 to 1990. Let this exercise be completed by the respondents within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to bring the order of this Court to the notice of respondents 2 & 3. The Authorities concerned, while deciding the claim of the petitioner, shall also consider whether any withdrawal is made by the petitioner during the intervening period or not.

5.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Bhola