Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1105 (ALL)

Pavitri Devi v. State of U. P.

2016-03-29

MUKHTAR AHMAD, TARUN AGARWALA

body2016
JUDGMENT We have heard Sri S.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the Accountant General-respondent no. 2 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. 2. The petitioner is the widow who has filed the present writ petition against the orders of the respondents recovering the excess salary from the retiral dues of her husband and for wrongful retention of 10% of the gross G.P.F. amount. The petitioner had earlier filed the Writ Petition No. 30614 of 2010 which was disposed of by an order dated 22nd July, 2015, directing the Authorities to consider and decide the representation with regard of withholding of the 10% of the gross G.P.F. amount and also with regard to recovery of the excess amount paid, after considering the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in AIR 2015 SC 686. The Writ Court expressly directed the Authorities to consider the decision of the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih case (Supra) while deciding the representation of the petitioner. The representation has now been decided and rejected by the order dated 9th February,2016, against which the present writ petition has been filed. 3. We have perused the impugned order. We find that the circumstances provided in the decision in Rafiq Masih case (Supra) has not been considered by the Authority while rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 4. We are of the view that when a specific direction was given by the Court to decide the representation after considering the decision of the Supreme Court, it was obligatory upon the authority to consider the said decision which in the instant case has not been done. Consequently, on this short ground the impugned order cannot be sustained. 5. In so far as the wrongful retention of 10% of the gross G.P.F. amount is concerned, we find from the impugned order that the authorities have found that a sum of Rs.10,000/= was withdrawn by the petitioner's husband from the G.P.F. which was not reflected, and therefore, justified their action in retaining 10% of the G.P.F. amount. This alleged withdrawal of Rs.10,000/= is questioned by the petitioner. We are of the opinion that the details with regard to the withdrawal of R.10,000/= by the petitioner’s husband should be indicated and specified by the authority. This alleged withdrawal of Rs.10,000/= is questioned by the petitioner. We are of the opinion that the details with regard to the withdrawal of R.10,000/= by the petitioner’s husband should be indicated and specified by the authority. We also find that if only Rs.10,000/= was withdrawn, the balance amount should be released. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and writ petition is allowed. 7. We, accordingly, direct the Accountant General, A.G.U.P., Allahabad to reconsider this aspect of the matter and pass appropriate orders afresh within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 8. We also direct the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner within six weeks from the date of production of a certified coy of this order with regard to recovering the excess salary from the retiral dues of the petitioner's husband after considering the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih AIR 2015 SC 686.