C ^ l as /. THE HIGH COURT QFCHHAniSGARH AT BILASPUR W.MS1NO. /y^^ /2010 PETITIONER : P. K. Sharma, aged about 63 years, S/o. Late. Shri D.N. Sharma, Occupation- Superintendent (Retired) office of District education officer, At present R/o Govt. Quarter, 4/4, 27, Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Dist-Bilaspur(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS (:s^./^°' /^^/ ^'V 7 ^ ^/ :1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through; Secretary Education Department, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Tahsil & Dist; - Raipur, (Chhattisgarh). . 2. Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, Tahsil & District: Raipur, (Chhattisgarhj 3. Block Education Officer, Pandariya, Tahsil Pandariya, Dist. Kabirdham (Ch^dttisgafti} ^ 4. The District Education Officer Korba, Tahsil & Dfst; Korba (Chhattisgarhj 5. Additional Secerator/, General AdmFhistration ciepartment Pension redressal committee, Mantralya Dau Kalyan Singh 'Bhawan, Raipur, Tahsil & Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh r*< \) ^^ HIGH COUR.T OF CHHATHSGARI1 AT BILASPUR. PETtTIONER RESPONDENTS WRTT PETmON (S) No. 433 of2010 P.K.Shanna. VERSUS Tlie State ofChhattisgarh & Others. Writ Petition Under Article 226/227 OfThe Constitution Oflndia SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Stari Rupesh SIuivastava, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer fw the State/respondents 1, 3 & 4. Shri R.Pradhan, Advoeate for the respondent No. 2. ORALORDER (Passed on 01" day of Febroaty, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge <he legality and vaMdity of the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the Connnittee constituted by the State Govemment, pursuant to the order dated 19.06.2006 passed in W.P. No. 1961/2006 by this Court. 2. The facts, as projected by fhe petitioner, in brief; are that Ihe petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2006 from the post of Superintendent, office of the District Education OfScer, Korba. After retirement, the petitioner applied for payment of Pro'vident Fund, amounting to Rs. 1,22,658/-. The said application was tbrwarded by the respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner received a show cause notice for tecovery of excess amount, paid earlier to the petitioner. Accordingly, the provident fund anaount of the petitioner was withlield. Against the said action of tfae respondents, fhe petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4443/2009, wherein, flris Court vide order dated 19.08.2009 (Annexure P/8) directed the petitioner to make a detailed representation before the Committee and in tum, the Committee was directed to eonsider and decide the representation within a period of four months. Pursuant to the said order, fhe petitioner submitted his representation to the H6gh Power Retiral Dues Committee. However, the said representation was rejected without coiisidering the facts and subniissions offhe petitioner. Thus, flus petitioner. jff 3. Leamed counsel appearing for Ifae petitioner submits fhat tfae concemed department, in which the petitioner was working i.e. the School Education Department, was not present betbre the Committee and thus, in absence ofthe relevant documents which could haw filed relevant documents, the Aimt Committee cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to payment ofprovident fand amoimt. 4. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for flie petitioner, perused Ifae pleadings and documents appended Ifaereto. 5. On bare perusal ofthe impugned order itsetf, it is apparent Ihat the Coiiimittee has dealt with the grievance of the petitioner in aecordance with law and on fhe basis of documents. The claim of the petitioner is based on the basis ofthe second copy of the provident fimd pass book, which is maiatained by the employee. The Connnittee has held that fhe pass book maintained by the petirioner was not updated properiy by Ihe concemed Drawing and Disbursing OfGcer, and thus, he is claiming flie amount of provident fund. The Committee has ftirfher gwen the details viz. amount and date of withdrawals made by the petitioner fi'om his provident fund account and after taldng Aose amount, fhere appears to be a negative balance in (he account ofthe petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has beea denied any amount ofprovident fund. 6. As far as the grievance oflfae petitioner Ihat the concemed department was not present before the Committee, the same is noticed to be rejected on a simple g-ound that Ifae Committee has perused tfae documents and reeords maintained by fhe office ofthe Accountant General. On perusal oftte said documents, the Comnuttee has come to the conctusion Ifaat there was a ne^tive balanee in the account offlie petitioner and thus, his case was rejected. 7. The Pension Committee, comprising of Secretary, Pinance Dqiartment, Comnussiotier, Treasury, Aceounts & Pension, Additional Secretary, Law Department, Senior Deputy Accountant General (Fund) aid Additioaal Secretary, General Aitaunistration Department, examined the case after hearing flie petitioner and it was found that tfae withdrawal of the amounts from September, 1976 to July, 1995, were not recorded in the second copy of provident fund pass book ofthe petitioner. Accordingly, the said anounthas been deducted &om the total amount payable to the petitioner. Thus, fhere is no error or irregulaity in calculrtion of the amoimt by the Conaiittee of experts. 8." Ifl view of Ihe above, fiie writ petition, lieing devoid of merit, is accordiagiy dismissed at the motion stage itself. — — ———— Satish K. Agnihotri ; Judge j