Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 236 (JHR)

Kanaklata Haldar v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-03-23

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2005
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioners husband late Sudhakar Haldar was in the services of the State Govt. He was appointed in the year 1997 and since then the amount towards provident fund contribution was deducted from this his salary. He retired on 31.7.1999 and died within a week thereafter i.e. on 6.8.1999. No amount towards provident fund was paid to him during his lifetime and after more than three years of his death his widow (petitioner) was paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,941/- pursuant to authority slip No. 8761, dated 24.10.2002. However, inspite of repeated requests, total provident fund amount was not paid to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 31.8.2004 for payment of provident fund amount. This Court by order dated 15.9.2004, directed the respondents to state whether the petitioner applied for provident fund in time and whether they have calculated upto date statutory interest or not, they were also directed to enclose a copy of the chart showing deductions as was made and the interest as accrued in the account of the petitioners husband. They were also directed to give details relating to the difference of pay to which her husband was entitled. 3. After about five months the respondents released further sum of Rs. 8,821/- in favour of the widow (petitioner). The petitioner also opposed the statement made in the counter affidavit that total provident fund amount has been paid. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents being vague, the District Provident Fund Officer, Chaibasa, was directed to appear and he was asked to submit a chart showing the details of amount deducted from the salary of the petitioners husband towards provident fund and a statement showing the amount as has been paid to the petitioner against different heads. 4. On 7.2.2005 Mr. Suresh Prasad, District Provident Fund Officer, Chaibasa appeared and informed that he has recently joined the post of District Provident Fund Officer on 27th, January, 2005. He further submitted that he will look into the documents and will provide the chart. But inspite of the Courts order passed on 7.2.2005 in his presence neither the District Provident Fund Officer remained present nor provided the chart to the petitioner. 5. The provident fund with interest was not paid to the petitioner for several years. He further submitted that he will look into the documents and will provide the chart. But inspite of the Courts order passed on 7.2.2005 in his presence neither the District Provident Fund Officer remained present nor provided the chart to the petitioner. 5. The provident fund with interest was not paid to the petitioner for several years. In spite of Courts order the District Provident Fund Officer, Chaibasa failed to report and failed to provide the chart showing the deduction and statutory interest calculated thereon. 6. This Court issued a bailable warrant of arrest of District Provident Fund Officer, Chaibasa and directed him to state as to why he be not punished for violation of the Courts order dated 7th February, 2005 and a cost of Rs. 5,000/- be not imposed on him. 7. In pursuance of Courts order dated 28.2.2005, the District Provident Fund Officer, Chaibasa has appeared and filed a supplementary show cause enclosing a chart showing deduction of P.F. amount and statutory interest paid thereon for the period 1976-77 to 1996-2000. One clerk, namely, Mr. Brajendra Kumar Jha S/o late Bishwanath Jha at present posted as head clerk in the office of District Provident Fund Officer, Chaibasa, permanent resident of Radhrani Sinha Road, Bhagalpur (Bihar) appeared of his own along with District Provident Fund Officer to assist him as he is the dealing assistant. On the request of the counsel for the petitioner he is impleaded as party respondent in this case. When it was brought to the notice of the officer and staff that the amount deducted towards provident found for the period 1967-68 to 1975-76 has not been reflected in the chart contained in Annexure-C/1 nor any such amount has been included therein, Mr. Brajendra Kumar Jha, head clerk informed that no amount was deducted during the said period. The petitioner produced a photostat copy of Proforma-1, which was prepared by the District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa, showing deduction for the period 1967-68 to 1975-76 which was intimated to the authority, present person replied that the aforesaid amount is reflected in the chart contained in Annexure-C/1, but could not show that the amount has actually been reflected. 8. At this stage Mr. Brajendra Kumar Jha submitted that if a direction is given then the respondents will calculate the rest amount and pay the same. 9. 8. At this stage Mr. Brajendra Kumar Jha submitted that if a direction is given then the respondents will calculate the rest amount and pay the same. 9. The manner in which the respondents are dealing the matters, it appears that they have been misleading the Court, without verifying the actual deduction made from time to time, as it appears an incomplete chart has been submitted in violation of the Courts order. Thus, the Court feels that an exemplary cost should be imposed on the erring officer and staff. 10. Mr. Suresh Prasad, District Provident Fund Officer, Chaibasa and Mr. Brajendra Kumar Jha, Head Clerk in the District Provident Fund Office, Chaibasa are accordingly directed to state as to why a cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- be not imposed on them. Both the officer and staff being present, no separate notice need be issued on them. 11. Counsel for the State is directed to state as to why the State Government be not directed to take appropriate action against such officer and staff and why they be not directed to pay up to date interest on the aforesaid amount. 12. Let the case be listed for further hearing under the heading for orders on 14th April, 2005. 13. Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned SCI.