High Court of KeralaWP(C)/18743/2006disposed of

P.N.Sukumara Pillai v. Union Of India

2015-09-25Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/3RD ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 18743 of 2006 (F) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

----------------------- P.N.SUKUMARA PILLAI, (MECH/REFG/SK (RETD.)), PAZHOKOICKAL HOUSE THELLIYYOOR.P.O, VENNIKULAM, MALLAPPALLY TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA, DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., MINISTRY OF DEFENCE NEW DELHI.

2. THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER, JT.C.D.A.(FUNDS), MEERUT CANTT.

3. GARRISON ENGINEER E/M, KATTARIBAUGH, NAVAL BASE.P.O, KOCHI-4.

R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR, ADDL.CGSC R BY T.SANJAYAN R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.R. RAJESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 18743 of 2006 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR 200001 WITH RESEPCT TO THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2.7.01.

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 3RD RESONDENT, DATED 30.10.01.

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1.3.06.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== W.P.(C) No.18743 of 2006 - F ====================== Dated this the 25th day of September, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Neither the petitioner's Counsel nor the Central Government Counsel was present, when the matter was taken up for hearing.

2. The petitioner is before this Court contending that though the balance in his Provident Fund account is shown as Rs.39,490 as evident from Ext.P1, only an amount of Rs.24,651/- was paid to him by D.D.No.01/0B-6/571614 dated 22.09.2001. The petitioner is said to have made many representations, which was not even responded to by the respondents.

3. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, the petitioner could move the 2nd respondent with a fresh representation for consideration of his claim and the 2nd respondent shall consider

W.P.(C) No.18743 of 2006 - F the same and pass orders after referring to the details of the provident fund contributions made by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A to Judge.