""^" HIGHCOURTOFCHHAH8SGARHATBSLASPUR PETSTIONER RESPONDENTS : 1. 2. 3. WRIT PETJTSON (S^ No. 1428 of 2009 Bhuwneshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Lt. Shri Chhabil Prasad Sahu, Aged about 63 years, Post - Retired Upper Division Teacher, R/o Viilage &j Post Loharsi, Block & Tehsi! Pam^rh, |District Janjgr Champa (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Accountant General, Chhattisgarh State, Pandri, RaipurC.G. Treasury Officer, District Treasury, District Janjgir Champa C.G. Mr. Kamod Ram Yadav Block Education Officer, Janjgir, Dlstrict Janjglr Champa, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTiTUTSON OF JNDSA Present: SB: Hon'bleShriSatish K.A&iihotri.J. Shri A!ok Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.SJhakur, DeputyAdvocate General forthe State/respondents 1 and 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18th day of March, 2009) i. Wlth the consent of the partles, the matter is heard finally. 2. Learned counseS appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 3, BSock Education Offlcer, Janjgir, DlstriGt Janjglr Champa Is not disbursing the G.P.F. amount to the tune of Rs. 5,04,737/-to the petltaoner whlch has finaily been sanctioned by the offlce of the Accountant Generai. The petitioner has made a compiaintto the District Education Officerthat the respondent No. 3 is withdrawing thesame for his personal use and not disbursing the amount to the petitioner. 3. Shri Dewangan further submlts that the District Education Offlcer, District Janjgir-Champa by its letter dated 17.2.2009 (Annexure P/7) has taken cognizance of the comp!alnt and has writfceti to the s respondent No. 3 to releas^ the amount of the petltjoner immediatefy.It is iastly submitted that despite the instructjons issued by the District Education Offjcer, no action has been taken til! date. 4. Shri Y.SJhakur, learned Deputy Advocate Genera! appearing for the State/respondents i and 2 submits that If it Is found true that the respondent No. 3, after havlftg obtained sanctlon from the office of the Accountant Genera! has retalned the money for his personal use, serlous action wouid be taken agalnst the respondent Np. 3 and It would be ensured that the amount is reieased to the petltloner, forthwith. - i ; '! 5. 3n view of the foregoing, ORce the District Education Offlcer has taken cognizance of the compSajnt, It is not properto Interfere wlth the matter at this stage. Thus, the petitioh is dismlssed as being premature. Noorderasto costs. Satish K. Agnihottri '^