Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 455 (JHR)

Jai Ram Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand

2001-07-16

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Pursuant to order dated 24.6.2002 the District Education Officer, Chaibasa and District Provident Fund Officer, Chaibasa have appeared in person. For better appreciation the order dated 24.6.2002 is quoted hereinabelow : The petitioner retired as a teacher in 1999. He was paid Provident Fund amount for the period 1986 till the date of retirement. He was not paid his Provident Fund amount which was deposited before 1986. The District Provident Fund Officer, Chaibasa in his counter-affidavit has not disputed the claim of the petitioner but his stand is that the Provident Fund amount for the period prior to 1986 is payable to the petitioner at the instance of the District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa. While the District Superintendent of Education in his counter affidavit has stated that the District Provident Fund Officer is liable to pay the said amount. In the background these two counter affidavit, I direct the District Superintendent of Education and the District Provident Fund Officer. Chaibasa to take all possible steps and released the Provident Fund amount which is payable to the petitioner for the period prior to 1986. Till the Provident Fund amount is paid to the petitioner, both the officers shall not withdraw their salary and shall not claim TA/DA while appearing in Court either today or in the next date. Put up this case on 15th July, 2002. On that day, both the District Superintendent of Education and the District Provident Fund Officer, Chaibasa shall appear in person before this Court along with cheque for the Provident Fund amount, which is payable to the petitioner. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the JC to Addl. AG." 2. Today both the officers have produced a draft of Rs. 1,08743 (One lac eight thousand seven hundred forty three) vide cheque No. 216413 being the provident fund amount legally payable to the petitioner which has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. It is therefore, evident as to how the retired employees are being harassed by the officers like the present District Provident Fund Officer, Chaibasa and the District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa. 3. In the affidavit filed today the details as to how the amount has been calculated, has not been furnished. It is therefore, evident as to how the retired employees are being harassed by the officers like the present District Provident Fund Officer, Chaibasa and the District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa. 3. In the affidavit filed today the details as to how the amount has been calculated, has not been furnished. The respondents are therefore directed to furnish the detailed account of the Provident Fund amount to the petitioner within two weeks from today. 4. Time and again the Supreme Court and the different High Courts have held that Provident Fund is the hard earned money of the employees and it is not bounty or charity which is paid by the government. It is only because of the inaction and negligence on the part of the officers the retired employees are deprived of their Provident Fund amount. 5. In the instant case also the petitioner retired in 1999 and it was only after he approached this Court and after the aforementioned order was passed the provident amount has been calculated and paid to the petitioner. In my opinion the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. The Provident Fund Commissioner is directed to hold an enquiry and fix the responsibility as to for whose negligence the Provident Fund amount could not be paid to the petitioner In time. After fixing the responsibility the Provident Fund. Commissioner shall issue necessary direction for recovery of the said amount from their salary. 6. This application is thus disposed of. It is made clear that the Provident Fund Commissioner will not sit tight over the matter and he shall send compliance report to the registry of this Court within three months from today. The order dated 24.6.2002 so far as it relates to withdrawal of salary by these both officers, is recalled.