Chattisgarh High Court
Dashrath Prasad Sahu (D.P.Sahu) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 April, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2978 of 2022
Dashrath Prasad Sahu (D.P.Sahu) S/o Ram Lal Sahu, Aged About 64
Years Retd. Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, R/o Village Chisda, Post
Pendri Block - Jaijaipur District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture,
Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police
Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Director Directorate Of Agriculture, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal
Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District
Raipur (C.G.)
3. Joint Director, Agriculture, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District
Bilaspur (C.G.)
4. Deputy Director, Agriculture, Behind Collectorate, Raigarh, Tahsil And
District Raigarh (C.G.)
5. Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sub Division Dharamjaigarh, District
Raigarh (C.G.)
6. Accounts Officer, Office Of The Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, Raipur
(C.G.)
---- Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate
For State : Mr. Ali Asgar, Deputy A.G.
For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Ashwani Shukla, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
26/04/2022
1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is in respect of
non settlement of GPF dues payable to the petitioner to the tune of
Rs.1,45,000/-.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was working on the post of
Rural Agriculture Extension Officer under the respondents. He retired from
service w.e.f. 30.06.2020. At that point of time it was detected that the
petitioner had been defrauded of his GPF amount to the tune of
Rs.1,45,000/- which was reflected as withdrawal made from his GPF
account. However, on verification, it was found that the said employee had
never made any such withdrawal from his GPF. It was also found that the
said amount was withdrawn by Mr. L.N. Ram and another person namely
C.R. Yadav. The department thereafter lodged an FIR against those two
persons for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 &
471 read with Section 34 IPC at Dharamjaigarh Police Station under
District Raigarh.
3. The criminal case initiated against those persons are still going on,
however, the petitioner till date has not received GPF amount of
Rs.1,45,000/- though he stood retired in the year 2020 i.e. for about 2
years now which had led to the filing of the present writ petition .
4. The counsel for the petitioner referred to judgment passed by this court in
WPS No.3568 of 2015, decided on 20.02.2020 on identical set of facts
where after dealing with the matter, the High Court in paragraph 4 held as
under:
"4. Perusal of the document Annexure P-3 shows that the
communication was made on 24.12.2009 and prima facie it
was found by the inspecting team that from the Account of
S.D.O. Agriculture Dharamjaigarh, GPF amount was
withdrawn by forgery and it was found that the amount has
been illegally withdrawn by some person and FIR was
directed to be lodged. The document shows thereafter the
enquiry was conducted and it was found that from the
account of different persons GPF amount was withdrawn by
forgery. The said documents are of 2009. As per the enquiry
report, which is placed on record, which prima facie shows it
was found that the petitioner has not withdrawn the amount
of Rs.1,67,000/- from the account of GPF. Consequently, if
the amount has not withdrawn by the petitioner and prima
facie the same has been established, the State cannot deny
if the person concerned seeks withdrawal by way of part
final. Furthermore, if after the enquiry as has been stated in
the reply, the recovery would be made and the amount would
be made good also cannot be accepted as with the lapse of
time, if the enquiry remains for indefinite period or
eventually at the end the recovery could not be made, the
petitioner cannot be made to suffer on the ground that the
recovery should not be made. The State is the trustee of the
GPF, holding it on behalf of the beneficiary. Therefore, if
someone by fraud has taken out the amount then in such
case the beneficiary cannot be made to suffer for no fault of
him. The record shows that considerable period has already
been lapsed till the preliminary enquiry conducted and prima
facie finding has been arrived at. The petitioner therefore
cannot be kept waiting by saying that the amount which was
deposited has forgery been withdrawn. Under the facts and
circumstances of this case, the State is directed to make
good the amount of Rs.1,67,000/- to the GPF account of the
petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt
of this order. The petitioner thereafter shall be entitled to
withdraw the amount as per the rules and norms which
governs for withdrawal."
5. The State counsel on the other hand submits that it is a case where
criminal prosecution against the erring officers is underway and
appropriate recovery proceedings would be initiated against them and
thereafter the petitioner would be paid whatever dues payable.
6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of
records, admittedly this Court earlier in WPS No.3568 of 2015 had an
occasion to deal with an identical set of facts where there is a specific
observation and directions given by this Court. The fact being identical,
this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition can also be
disposed of and the directives given in the said case would have to be
adhered to in the present case and the claim of the petitioner also has to
be settled in similar terms.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition also stands decided in terms of the
order dated 20.02.2020 passed in WPS No.3568 of 2015. The
respondents are directed to make good an amount of Rs.1,45,000/-
towards GPF amount of the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the
date of receipt of copy of this order. Release of the said amount would be
subject to verification of the GPF account of the petitioner so far as the
figure of Rs.1,45,000/- is concerned.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Ved
