Court No.2.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.40492 of 2004.
Rama Shanker Hemkar ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors ...........Respondents.
:::::::::::
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.K. Singh
Raghubanshi for respondent nos. 5 and 6.
Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged
and with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being finally disposed
of.
By this petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to pay entire General Provident Fund with
interest of 18% per annum to the petitioner within reasonable period.
Petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that petitioner who was
working as a Clerk in the office of Settlement Officer, Consolidation
retired on 30/11/1997, after attaining the age of superannuation. It is
submitted that he has filed representations for payment from the GPF
which were not considered, hence the petitioner had come up before
this Court.
Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of respondent no.3. It has been stated in the
supplementary counter affidavit that on account of taking loan on
30/10/1996, the balance was in minus Rs. 5760/-.
In the supplementary counter affidavit a ledger has been filed
duly attested by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Jaunpur. A counter
affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Accountant General, U.P.
Allahabad annexing a copy of the letter dated 09/12/2004, by which the
Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Jaunpur was asked to inform as to
when the payment for ten percent has been forwarded to the office of
the Accountant General. It has been stated in para 4 of the counter
affidavit that 90 percent of the amount in the GPF is to be paid to the
petitioner by his department and for final payment the claim is to be
forwarded by the department to the Accountant General.
2
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the ledger
which has been filed by the respondents, two loans have been
mentioned one of Rs.5000 on 04/10/1993 and second of Rs.22,000/- on
02/3/1993. He submits that the said loans were never withdrawn by the
petitioner. He has also referred to the statement for the year 1996-97
given by the Office of Accountant General which has been filed as
Annexure-14 to the writ petition. He submits that the ledger which has
been filed by the respondent no.3 does not tally with the statement of
account given by the Accountant General. He submits that the aforesaid
loans having never been taken by the petitioner, petitioner is entitled for
the GPF amount which he directed to be paid with interest.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view
that the only dispute which now remains to be considered is as to
whether the petitioner has taken the loan of Rs.22,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-
as indicated above. Insofar as the loan of 25,000/- taken by the
petitioner on 30/10/1996 the same is not denied. The issue as to
whether the petitioner took the loan/withdrawal of Rs.22,000/- and Rs.
5,000/-is an issue which cannot be decided from the materials available
on record. It is for the competent authority to look into the said issue and
take appropriate decision after examining all the relevant records
including the records maintained by the office of the Accountant
General. Ends of justice be served in giving liberty to the petitioner to
submit a detailed representation before the respondent no.3 regarding
payment of his GPF which may be considered and decided by the
respondent no.3 within a period of 3 months from the date of filing of the
representation and after examining all the relevant records. It is made
clear that if the petitioner is found entitled for payment of any balance
GPF amount it shall be paid to him along with interest as admissible on
the payment of GPF in accordance with law.
With the above observation writ petition is disposed of.
22/1/2010
SB
3