Ramshankar Jaiswal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 9039 of 2019 • Ramshankar Jaiswal, S/o. Shri Vishnu Prasad Jaiswal, Aged About 68 Years, (Retired Patwari) Resident Of Village- Kachhar, Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District-Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Accountant General Government Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

4. The Collector (Land Record) Raigarh, District-Raigarh Chhattisgarh

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sarangarh, District-Raigarh Chhattisgarh

6. The Tahsildar Raigarh, Distric-Raigarh Chhattisgarh

7. The Tahsildar Sarangarh, District-Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri K.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondents/ State :

Shri Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 :

Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 07/11/2019

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has retired on 30.09.2011, however, the GPF amount has not been disbursed to the petitioner on the ground that some discrepancy of calculation exist and the petitioner claims that his GPF amount would be Rs. 2,42,282/- whereas

according to the Respondent it is around Rs. 2,30,226/-. However, it is stated that the entire GPF amount has not been paid apart from this the petitioner has also claimed certain other retiral benefit.

2. Given the aforesaid facts as stated by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the dispute raised by the petitioner can be redressed in a better manner if the respondent No. 2 is directed to reassess the GPF account of the petitioner by calling upon the records from the employer i.e. respondent No. 4 and also the records which are available with the petitioner, if any, in respect of his GPF account. Thereafter, reassessing the entire records, let the respondent No.2 pass a fresh order. While doing so, the petitioner is expected of being given a personal hearing and enable him to produce all relevant records that are available with him before the respondent No.2 so far as his GPF account and the entires made in the GPF passbook is concerned.

3. Considering the fact that the petitioner was retired on 30.09.2011, it is observed that the petitioner may file a detail representation with Respondent No. 2 within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and may raise all the demand which allege to be due and to be paid to him. The representation so made shall be decided within a further period of four months and the decision be intimated to the petitioner along with due remittance if accrue to the account of the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Jyoti