•cn'Ws ^ --L..-.----" 00 il^ BEFQRE THE HIGHC^URT OF^HHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHI W.P. (St No. ^ 12.2. of 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTp 1 ^tt^ .-•f' ^^.•^" .<^ ^y.,- ^' ^y^ ^?' .••'(^'/ /° Smt. Sudha Verma Wd/o Late Ambika Prasad Verma, aged about 66 years, R/o Post and Tahsil Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Secretary —•General Administration Departnient, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh^ Through Secretary — Schpol Education Department , D.K.8. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Accountant General (AG) Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, District-Jashpur (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Block-Bagicha, Distt.-Jashpur (C.G.) !ji(r^-^;?7:iT: ii,]].,—..,.,:.: ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ';•»•!:. :4&^ fWK--' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Petitioner Respondents W.P.(S)No.5122/2011 Smt. Sudha Verma Versus Stateof Chhattisgarh and others Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Present:- Shri K. N. Nande,counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Praveen Das, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents No.1, 2, 4 & 5on advance copy. Shri R. Pradhan, counsel respondent No.3 on advancecopy. ORALORDER (Passed on 05-09-2011) This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the decision taken by the Retiral Dues Committee constituted under the directions issued by this Court in compliance of order dated 19-06-2006 and 13-03-2008 passed in W.P.(S)No. 1961/2006. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the writ petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court for payment of full amount of G.P.F. standing in the account of the petitioner's husband. It was claimed that though deceased employee was entitled to payment of Rs.2,62,000/- towardsG.P.F., only an amount of Rs.63,978/- was paid. After hearing the parties, detailed order was passed directing the matter to be enquired into by the committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the matter was scrutinized by the committee, the committee rejected the claim, relying upon the certain documents/records relating to withdrawal of GPF amount on eight occasions. He submits that this fact was never disclosed to this Court in the earlier round of proceedings and for the first time, the records of Accountant General were placed to show that part withdrawal had taken place on eight occasions from the GPF account. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner while relying ._.J /' ! 'a.^ ^g3^<-t; ^ upon the pass book placed on record as Annexure P-3, which shows that withdrawal from the GPF account had taken only once, claimed that thebalance amount of Rs.2,62,000/- was payable. He submits that this aspect was not properly scrutinized and examined by the committee and the committee without proper scrutiny, relying upon the records relating to withdrawal from the GPF account ignoring the aforesaid pass book, which does not contain any such entry, rejected the claim.He further submits that the petitioner was not allowed to inspect and examine those records relating to withdrawal from time to time as stated in para 5 of the order of fhe committee. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the committee did not make proper enquiry as directed by this Court, and therefore, this writ petition has been filed. 3. After going through the material placed on record and the order passed by the Committee, I find that the Committee had issued notice to the petitioner and on behalf of the department, Block Education Officer, Bagicha as also Officer/Employee of the Office of Accountant General appeared before the Committee. The committee took into consideration that as many as eight GPF account numbers were allotted to the petitioner, and earlier, after retirement of the deceased employee, an amount of Rs.63,978/- was found payable towards GPF, which was also authorized vide letter of authority dated 04-07-1997 and the payment was also made. The order passed by the committee also shows that the committee, took into consideration the submissions of departmental authorities and the records, found that as many as on eight occasions, GPF withdrawal had taken place. The records were perused by the committee. Based on the aforesaid material available on record made available bythe Departmentand the Accountant General, the committee has come to the conclusion that the entire amount, which was payable, has been paid. It is also took into consideration that the petitioner has produced more than one pass book in support of claim for payment of the GPF amount. The affidavit submitted by the petitioner on 26-03- ^2^ -z 2011 was also taken into consideration and it was found that on the basis of the •affidavit, no conclusion can be drawn. The committee, therefore, relying upon the records made available by the office of Accountant General and verified by the departmental authorities, recorded that whatsoever amount was found due and payable to the deceased employee Shri A. K. Verma was paid on 27-11-1997 and no further amount is due and payable. 4. In the absence of there being any specific ground taken in the petition that the petitioner was not afforded due and proper opportunity of hearing or was not allowed to lead evidence or that the petitioner or her representative was not allowed to inspect the departmental records, 1 do not find any procedural irregularity or impropriety in the decision making process. The reasons, which have been stated by the committee in its order, cannot be said to be irrelevant. It appears that the committee has recorded a finding offact based on examination of records. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no grounds for warranting interference under Article 226 of Constitutiori of India are made out. However, considering that seriously disputed facts have arisen for consideration before the Committee, if the petitioner is not satisfied, the remedy would be to take recourse to remedy of civil suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly submitted that departmental records were not allowed to be inspected. However, from the pleadings in the writ petition, I did not find any pleading to that effect. The petitioner is entitled to copies of the relevant entries made in the official records of the Accountant General as well as the State on applications made to the departmental authorities. 5. With the afpresaid observation, the petition is finally disposed off. Tumane Sd/'- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge