Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 710 (MP)

Jagdish Prasad Pandey v. State of M. P.

2017-05-24

SANJAY YADAV

body2017
ORDER : Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. Petitioner by way of present petition seeks following relief : "(A) direct the respondents to produce all the documents regarding G.P.F before this Hon'ble Court. (B) direct the respondents to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 47570/- with 12% interest from the date of his retirement." 2. At the out set it is noticed that earlier also for the selfsame relief the petitioner had approached Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal vide application-O.A.590/2002. The said application was transferred to High Court after abolition of Tribunal; wherein, in a Lok Adalat held on 09.10.2004 following order came to be passed : "The grievance of the petitioner relates to less payment of GPF. It is agreed to by Mr. Harish Agnihotri that the Accountant General shall nominate a Senior officer to lookinto the matter, who shall afford an opportunity of hearing either to the petitioner or to his agent and take step for reconciliation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order passed today. Mr. Tiwari has no objection." 3. That in pursuance to said order the petitioner was called for personal hearing/re-conciliation on 15.12.2004. The petitioner's son appeared for the petitioner on 17.01.2005. 4. It is borne out from the return filed by respondent No.4 that authorised representative of the petitioner expressed his full satisfaction the ledger account maintained by respondent No.4. It is stated that withdrawals are shown by the department in the second pass book and to enable him to satisfy the withdrawals from the department records, the photocopies of first and second pass books were sent to department by the respondent vide letter dated 04.02.2005 for supplying copies thereof to the petitioner. The copies were supplied on 09.03.2005 where-from all the withdrawals were confirmed and the department was requested to issue authority on the basis of the first pass book. It is further stated that it was found that in the first pass-book some of the withdrawals were not appearing were recorded in second pass book and vice versa. It is urged that since all the withdrawals were confirmed to have been withdrawn and paid to the petitioner, it was apparent that the balance worked out there was inflated and as such there was no question of authorization of the amount based on the first pass book. Accordingly, a fresh show cause notice against recovery of Rs. It is urged that since all the withdrawals were confirmed to have been withdrawn and paid to the petitioner, it was apparent that the balance worked out there was inflated and as such there was no question of authorization of the amount based on the first pass book. Accordingly, a fresh show cause notice against recovery of Rs. 2463/- and interest thereon in terms of provisions of Rule 14(7) of the Madhya Pradesh General Provident Fund Rules, 1955 (for brevity 'the Rules') was issued on 16.05.2005. 5. The petitioner raised an objection there against on 10.06.2005 which was rejected by respondent No.4 on 15.07.2005. It is further submitted that the amount which is found due after verification with ledger account is authorised by the Accountant General. It is further stated that finance department's order dated 15.12.1966 (Annexure R/3) clearly stipulates that the pass book is only a subscriber's record denoting the transactions in his GPF account and in case of any dispute regarding balance in a subscriber's account, the balance as per ledger of Accountant General will only be accepted. It is further urged that responding to application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 it was only vide communication dated 28.01.2009 that except withdrawal of 250/- in 10/1972 all the withdrawals were drawn and paid to the petitioner and 'Aquittance Rolls' were relied upon to substantiate the fact that the petitioner is paid all the withdrawals. It is further found that up to retirement on 31.07.1989 the account of the petitioner continued to be in minus (-) and is fixed at Rs. (-)1490/-. 6. No rejoinder is filed by the petitioner disputing the contentions raised on behalf of respondent No.4. 7. Since a cogent explanation supported by material documentary evidence has been tendered by respondent No.4 in respect of status of GPF account of the petitioner whereon it was found that the petitioner is liable to refund of Rs. 1490/- along with interest in terms of provision 14(7) of the Rules, the relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted, instead respondents are set at liberty to recovery the said amount in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of finally in above terms.