HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR -"/^.3.ff? "I Writ Petttion No. 2181 of 2003 Petitioner Gend Kuiaar Gupta Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others -/<. Post fo»Judguent& Order on ;? day ofMarch,2009. SA'- SatisfaK.Agmiiotri Judge ^ IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARHj BILASPUR WritPetitionNo. 2181 of 2003 Petitioner Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Gend Kumar Gupta, son of Shri R. R. Oupta, ay,ed about 52 years, resident of Krishna Nagar, juna Bilaspur, Tah aad District BUaspur(ChIiattisgarh) State of Chhattisgarh, through : its Principal Secretary, D.K.S. Bhawan, Maatealay, Raipur (Chhattegarh). The Maaaging DiTector, Chhattisgarh Adliosaiu-achaaa Vikas Nigaui, Parwahau Prabhag, Raipur (CUiattisgarh). Th Finaacial Advisor and Chief Accounts Ofi&cer, MP State Road Traasport Corporatien, Head Of&ce, Habeebganj, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) The Coinniissioner, Karinchari Bhavishya Nidi Of&ce, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chliattisgarh) The Divisional Manager, Chliattisgarh Adhosaaracharia Vikas N^am., Bus Stand, Bilaspur (Chhatdsgarh). The Divisional Accounts Officer, Bilaspur, Adho Saarachaa Vikas Nigam, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (CIihatttegarh). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Ms Renu Kocher, Advocate for thc petitioner. Ms SunitaJaia, Panel Lawyer for fhe respcaident No.l/State. Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocate for fhe respondeat No.4. Sbri Ashok Das Vaishiiav, Advocate for the respondents No. 2, 5 aud 6. JUDGMENT & ORDER (Passed on ttiis fcif day of March, 2009) 1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by non-paymeat of full and ffiial retiral dues has filed thjs petition seeking reUef to direct the conceraed aufhonties/respondeuts to pay a total sttm of Rs. 1,51,542/- towards different heads wlth admissible iatarest \A at the bauk rate with a furfher directton to pay a suia of Rs. 2,34,192/- towards provident fund with iaterest at the ratc of 10% p.a. Leanied counsel appearing for the petitioner woiild sutomit that the petitfoner was appoiated on the post of Booldng Agent ia the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTQ on 6.4.1981, Thereafter he was proinoted on the post of Ticket Examitier on 5.6.1990. On 6.1.2003 the petitioner subaiitted an appUcation for avaiUng ttie benefit of Voluntary Retirem.eat Scheme-2003 (VRS). That appUcation seekiag YRS was accepted on 31.1.2003. The grievaaces, as projected by ttie petitioner ta tfcie pctition, are fhat ftie respondents No. 5 and 6 have not deposited the E.P.P. amount i.e. Rs. 10,000/- for fhe period 1992 to 1996. As the petitioner reinained in job for 22 years therefore he was entitled to get Anugrah Rashi of 44 nionths but the respoadents have giveu that ainount only for 42 uionths. Likewise, Updan Rashl for 21 years was paid which was to be paid for 22 years. Thus, total Rs, 13,542/- (Rs. 10,510/- + Rs. 3,032/-} was not paul to fhe petitioner towards fhese two heads. In para 5.8 of tfae writ petition fhe petitioner tias stated that total Rs. 1,51,542/- is outstaitding towards different heads and Rs. 2,34,192/- towards provident fund. The respondentNo.4 filed its retum on 22.1.M04, whereia it is stated ftiat the petitioner has failed to estabUsh that any am.ount towards provident fund is due. The respondents No. 2, 5 and 6 Iiave filed their retura on 22.8.2003, wherein it is steted that the petitioner opted of fhe VRS and a. total sum ofRs. 2,49,742/- \r was already paid to the petitioner towards exgratia, gratuity, leave encastuaeat aud teavel allowauce etc. vide receipt dated 2.4.2003 (Annexure R-2/2). On 11.9.2008 itwas stated by leamed counsel appearing for the respoudents No. 2, 5 and 6 that the fuU and final paymeut faas been niade to fh.e petitioner aad the petitioner has acknowledged the payment stating that no outstanding payiaent is due. It was further stated that if any case is pendiag ia aay Court, that niay be deeined to have been withdrawn. In view of the above stateiuent made by leamed couasel appearing for fhe respondents No. 2, 5 aud 6, leamed coimsel appeaitng fca- fhe petitioner sought for and was granted time to seek iastructioas. In support of fhe stateiaent made by leamed cou&sel appearu^; for the respondents No. 2, 5 and 6 on 11.9.2008, the respondents No. 2, 5 and 6 have filed an appUcation I.A.No.3 on 15.9.2008 for takmg documents on record, enclosiag receipts of payment dated 2.4.2003 ( Rs. 2,92,742/-) and dated 10.9.2004 about furfher payment of Rs. 1,19,025/ -. Thereafter, on 31.1.2009 the respondent No.2 was directed to keep the ofl&cer present ia Coiut on fhe next date of hearmg, who had prepared fhe document ofAttaexure R-2/3, ffled alongwith I.A.No.3. Tlie petitioner did not ffle any response tiB 17tt> March, 2009, pursuaut to ftie statement niade by learoed coiuisel appearmg for the respondents No. 2, 5 aad 6 on 11.9.2008, as also to the docuiaents ffled along wifh fhe appUcation I.A.No.3. The conduct of fhe petitioner itself shows that afier having given understandiug, fhe petitioner stUl Wauts to proceed with the matter. It appears that the petttioner is deUberately avoidlng 5- 8, 9. 5 ^ fiting of ftie response to fhe order dated 11.9.2008 despite the opportuaity granted to the petitioner. In view ofthe foregoiag, it is apparent that the outstaading du.es, as piayed in tbe petition, have been setfled in view of ttie application i.e. I.A.No.3 filed on 15.9.2008, wlu.ch reiaaias unrebutted by the petitioner. However, if it is foiuid by the petitioner .that stin soiaettung remaias to be paid, fhough the petitioner has already given an uadertakuig fhat fuU and final paymeut has beeu made, the petitioner niay make appropriate representation to the coinpetent authority. If the represeatation is made, the sanie ahaU be considered aad decided, iu accordance with law, ou its own merits. For fhe reasons laentioned hereiaabove, fhis petition staads disposed of. No order, asto costs. Sd,'- Satish K. Agnifaotri Judge ThafciiT ^