^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION N0. ,/• •/ /2Q04 ^s-^l^ v PETITIONER ^c. ••^o^ i-^y "^y.^^-'. .-^y^' ^y" ^'' Tej Bahadur Singh, aged about "65 years, son of Late Ram Naresh Singh, Retired Block Education Officer (Vikash Khand Shiksha Adhikari),, • •* Shankargarh, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh), resident of Pratappurnaka Road, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Dist - Surguja (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : The Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Accountant General, State of Chhattisgarh, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh.) The Accountant General, State of Madhya Pradesh, Gwallior (Madhya Pradesh). /*, '3^^% ••^/ \ 'fr^'s^l V^IA^ II ••^~^v^ / ^..^^ d^*< ^ iC°l ^i.^w^y ^-^^ ,^0^^^^^'" ^^'" The Collector, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh). The Assistant Commissioner, Department of Tribal Welfare, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh). The Block Education Officer, Block Shankargarh, Ambikapur,, Dist. Surguja (Chhattisgarh). The Union of India (Cell), through : Controller and Auditor General, Govemment of India, 'CIO Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, NewDelhi 110002, WRIT PETITTON UNDER ART1CLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 sn^r^i 'f?;iw3n^r w^'afitT '3^ •^l'!<l<'f'i<, 8>fll^'i®,(«i<-ii'«y .y..;£.:.ivi.o..;.2.?:3.(LS/f sn^i^aiw^rfkd 13.02.2004 Petitiouer bv Shri A.. SItti Raiibu- Sm.gh, Go^ L&-i The petitioner has IBhakte, Advocate. H. Advocate'for fhe State. |referre;d tliis Writ Petition uader Article 226/227 of the Coit.stitution of India, questioned tfie uiaction on. Uie part of fhe i( of his General Provident Funfl The casc of thc petiti titio.jier pQ^t Education Officer in ftie 31.01.2002 fi-om the Shasikargarh, District Sarguj ttie GPF subscription was rctireDient of fh.c pctitioncr Welfare, Aiabikapur Distt. relevant papere to the Ac^ 29.12.2001 (Aimexure P-2) fomialities as per Rule 10 sevcral reprcscntations but represeatations nor fhey are| was deducted fi-om. the salart Learaed counsel for petitioaer niay be aUowed rcspondents No.2 & 3, to objection. Having heard fhe te having reganl to the facts 'l?il^<vi4^ 'qm^f ^^^ <f^i^n ^3lPOT31I^W ;spondents regarding non-payiaeiit [GPF] to tbe time ofRs.2,28,168/- is that hc was workiiig as Block of C.G. aad was retired oa of Block Educatiou Officer, ja (C.G.) and during his service time detlucted froin liis salarv and after the the Assistaat Coiiunissioncr, T'ribal [Sarguja has also transmitted the :oiuitaat General Office, M.P.' on ^)y coi&plying and furuishiag all the [of fhe GPP. The petitioner made rcspondcnts are not dccidiiig his |making paymeut of the GPF, which of the petitioner. the peutioner subniits th.at fhe inake a furfher representation to ^+hlcb. lcanicd Statc couiiscl has n.0 tfac tb ;4i~ned counsel for tlie parties and ^nd circuinstaiices of the case, fhe -; al^l'^1 R-ti'* sn^i ^i<^ ^ff?fl ^s^S^W^S- P.o^'totl/ Sfr, '..^^^ls!-^g^y^f- 'S'sf -*iiwi, si^l'u'ie, (°i<rti*iy __..fc(;.f..;.ri.o..-.. sn^i^iKR^ifei t petitioner is allowed to niake a his grievaiices withiu 10 days f aud ia;~tuiji i^spondcnt No. grievances of the petitioner withia a period of60 days froiq an objecti.ve inanner ia acci petitioner inay be coiniauiuca fhc respondents. Witti fhe above dtrections [n view of Uiis order] No.592/2004 for m-gent hearm] Certified copy as per rule cbl*(?<rt14l'( "WPRTf ^ fe^ <f^l^,l< ^aipgHgil^r further representation. raising all "oin today to respondent No.2 SB 3 & 3 aftcr considcring aU fhc shaU decide the representation the date of receipt of the same in iidaace with the law and the sd about the decision talcen bv fhe petition stands disposed of. M.W.P. No.20±/2004 & I.A. g stand disposed of. 3. Sd/- I..C.BHADOO Judge