Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 706 (PAT)

Mita Choudhary v. State Of Bihar

2001-08-07

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner claims to have retired as an Assistant Teacher from Rajkrit Uchch Vidalaya, Chiraiyatad, Patna on 30.9.1999. His first grievance is that part of provident fund dues amounts to approximately Rs. 30,000/- has remained unpaid on account of technical difficulty such as non-availability of details of treasury vouchers. His second grievance is that although amount of leave encashment was sanctioned by the District Education Officer, Patna on 13.12.2000 and the fund was made available to respondent no. 5, the Headmistress of the school in question but yet the said amount has not been paid to the petitioner although she has been approaching respondent no. 5 regularly. 3. So far as remaining dues of GPF is concerned, it is the duty of the concerned respondent to find out ways and means to collect the necessary details and even if TV Nos. cannot be collected, confirmation of the contributions may be obtained through secondary sources and such matters cannot defeat right of the retired employees to receive the lawful dues of GPF. Accordingly, respondent nos. 3 and 4 are directed to ensure that the balance dues of GPF of the petitioner are paid to him along with statutory interest till the date of payment, within two months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order. 4. So far as leave encashment dues are concerned, it is the duty of the respondent no. 3, the District Education Officer, Patna to exercise sufficient control over subordinate like the respondent no. 5, the Headmistress of the school, to ensure that retirement employees are not made to suffer. With regard to grievance of the petitioner, the District Education Officer is directed to hold an enquiry to find out whether respondent no. 5 is responsible for delay after December 2000 and in case she is found to be so responsible then administrative action should be taken against respondent no. 5 to ensure that such delay does not occur in future. It will also be expected of the respondent no. 3 to ensure that respondent no. 5 pays without any delay the sanctioned amount of leave encashment. Petitioner should also be paid a cost of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) within two months from today and the cost should be realised from those found responsible for delay in payment of leave encashment amount. 5. 3 to ensure that respondent no. 5 pays without any delay the sanctioned amount of leave encashment. Petitioner should also be paid a cost of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) within two months from today and the cost should be realised from those found responsible for delay in payment of leave encashment amount. 5. The writ application is allowed to the aforesaid extent.