3 BEFORE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNM,,RAIPUR' BENCH, RAIPUR 3 c^v^t^ic^ O.A.No. /2001 APELICANT I FIMtaaav^.^i&^- 1 ';•/ 5hf)--L --•'/--' ~,!f,is Mcm. Tiit/unai, ', RA/'Uf. NON APELICANTS GHANSHYAM RAGHUNATH VAIRAGADS, aged 62 yrs., Head Clerk (Retd.) Office o£ Joint Director Veternary, Services, Raipur Division, Raipur S/o Late shri Raghunath Vairagade, R/o D-80, Tagore Nagar, Raipur. Versus 1. State of M.P. through the Secretary, Veternary services, Department Vallabh Bhawan, BHOPAL M.P. 2. The Accountant General (Lekha and Ha(|dari)-II, Madbya Pradesh, Gwalior M.P. APELICATIOK U/s. 19 OF ADMINISTRATrv-E TRIBUNAL ACT 1985 311^1 qffi<-t ^TT W^T sh*ii<t* ~T5^ '-^WW<i, OTll^'IS, F«<01<-1'4,< -^-v^.^.:.^l.r^^ 3RI^?( ''R^T ('^?f3q?T) (^idW ^ltei 311^1 SB : Hon'ble Shri Bianindra Mohan Sh 24-OS-2010 Shri Ghanshyam Raghunath Vaii Shri Satish Gupta, Government on advanee copy. Shri Anand Verma, standing cour Heard. Submission of petitioner is that a be paid towards his G.P.F. along with in To support his eontention, the petitione have been plaeed on record. On the other hand, learned c( represents Accountant General, Stafe calcuiations made by 1he petitioner are ofG.P.F. has been paidtothe petitioner on various records. He also submitsthatl From the submission of learned the dispute is more with regard to computation ofthe same. Itwould, there] Retiral Dues Committee. The office of the Advocate Geni Committes, within a period of 15 days frs] order. Thsreafter, the Committee shali is| concerned within a further period of 15 d| pass order, in accordance with law, after ^ the petitioner. The petitioner and the °hl-y[^1^1T1 *ii4^^T ^s^ tf^^R i;3ffiiitan^i h'vastava.J. r^gade, Petitioner in person. ^dvocate for the State/respondent No.1 |sel for respondent No.2. fr] amount of Rs. 13.849/- stiil remains to iterest from the date it has become due. relies upon certain caiculations which lunsel for respondent No.2, who also fe of Chhattisaarh, submits ttiat the riot correct Hs submits that the amount after due and proper computation based accountsiips were inadvertent!y issued. counsel for the parties, !t appears that •calcijlations based on records and ;ore, be proper to send the matterto the ?ral is dlrectsd to send the case to the >m the date of receipt of a copy' of this sue notice to the petjtione'r and officers ays. The CQmmittee shall consider and ffording proper opportunity of hearing to ifficers concerned may file additional 9iraiflirA*Tgii1I»W,(Rs|-<?ri.T—FS;147—2/2010—1,00,000. "—n SII^T^I R-fW ^IT 3TT^?T 5t)*ii^i *<1*1MI *NI^» ^sf •^II^KI''^ ®iTly<i(o,fs|<niytj,< \ki. ^,^./ fYV.^b^/ WI, 200 SII^T 'T5W ('iclI^°<<]EI) TCIIW ^fta 311^1 T-~^ documents, if necessary. The entire any, to the petitioner, be compteted wth receipt of a copy' of this order. sx^rcise The petitioner shatl supply on^ counsel as welt as counsel for the the Committee. Wittl the aforesaid direction, th4 tM4rf<?l<ft'T ^W^^ 'f^t '<N^R '^sifinsn^r >, including paymeruL.of retirai dues, if n a period of four months from the date of complete set of the petition to the State Aceoitntant General for fransferring the same to peiition is finally disposed of. Sd/- ,::,:.,: MaiundraMohanShnvastava Judge y..