Surya Narayan Lal Das vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3967 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20142 of 2018
     ======================================================

Surya Narayan Lal Das, Son of Late Parshuram Lal Das, Resident of Village and Post- Chichri, Kanungo, P.S.- Raj Nagar, District- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The District Magistrate, Madhubani, District- Madhubani.

3. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Madhubani, District- Madhubani.

4. The Block Development Officer, Block- Jai Nagar, District- Madhubani.

5. The Director Provident Fund, Provident Fund Directorate, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

6. The District General Provident Fund Officer, Madhubani, District-

Madhubani.

7. The Accountant General (A&E), Bihar, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nityanand Mishra, Adv.

     For the State            :     Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta, GP10
                                    Mr. Satya Vrat, AC to GP-10
     For the A.G.             :     Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-08-2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondents through video conference.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

following reliefs as formulated by the petitioner-

"(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the

nature of mandamus directing and commanding the

respondents to make payment of full and final G.P.F.

amount for the period from 15.6.1958 to 1976-77 to the Patna High Court CWJC No.20142 of 2018 dt.05-08-2021

petitioner along with statutory interest compound in nature

as for the above said period G.P.F. amount were deducted,

but not paid to the petitioner.

(ii) Further for directing the respondent

concerned to furnish / make available entire calculation

chart of G.P.F. deduction and paid G.P.F. amount to the

petitioner.

(iii) Further for directing the respondent

concerned to make payment of compensation to the

petitioner for negligence and deliberate latches on the part

of respondent concerned for not paying full and final G.P.F.

amount for the period from 15.6.1958 to 1976-77 to the

petitioner.

(iv) Further for grant of any other relief/reliefs

for which the petitioner is entitled to."

3. The short facts of the case according to the petitioner

are that he was initially appointed on 15.6.1958 as Panchayat

Secretary in the office of Block Development Officer, Block-

Pandol, Dist. Darbhanga and in due course he superannuated from

the post of Panchayat Secretary on 31.5.1998 from the office of the

Block Development Officer, Jainagar, Madhubani. After

retirement, various arrear retiral dues were paid to the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.20142 of 2018 dt.05-08-2021

except G.P.F. amount for the period 15.6.1958 to 1976-77,

although the G.P.F. amount for the period 1977-78 up to 31.5.1998

was calculated and the amount paid at Rs. 1,25,432/- sometime in

the year 2000.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

G.P.F. amount for the period from 15.6.1958 to 1976-77 has

wrongly been denied by the respondent for which the petitioner

has filed applications dated 25.11.2011 and 23.7.2013 before the

District Provident Fund Officer, Madhubani (Respondent No.6)

but, to no avail and no further payment was made to the petitioner.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

respondent nos. 5 & 6 stating that the matter being old, the

relevant documents are not traceable in the office of the

respondent no. 7. In any event, a copy of the letter dated 9.10.2018

showing the balance transfer up to 1981-82 as Rs. 1,113/- has been

enclosed (Annexure-A). A calculation chart from the year 1977-78

has also been enclosed (Annexure-B). Finally, according to letter

dated 3.12.2018 (Annexure-C), the entire dues, namely the missing

amounts for the years 1977-78, 1980-81 and 1981-82 along with

interest (Rs. 1398/-), the balance transfer from the beginning of

service period up to 1981-82 (Rs. 1113/-), and thereafter for the

period 1982-83 up to the date of the petitioner's retirement, Patna High Court CWJC No.20142 of 2018 dt.05-08-2021

together with interest, was calculated altogether at Rs. 1,25,432/-

in full settlement of the petitioner's claim towards G.P.F.

6. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the

Account General (A & E) (Respondent No.7) according to which

in terms of letter dated 1.4.1986 issued from the office of the

Controller and Auditor General of India, the provident fund

account of the State Government employees came to be transferred

to the State Government effective from 1.4.1980. The office of the

respondent no.7 was thus relieved from the responsibility of

maintaining the provident fund accounts of the State Government

employees and accordingly the balance transfer of the petitioner's

G.P.F. account up to 1981-82 amounting Rs. 1,113/- was sent.

7. Having heard the parties and on consideration of the

materials on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the

matter. The respondent nos. 5 & 6 have enclosed copies of the

documents to support the stand that the balance transfer as on

1981-82 was Rs. 1,113/- which is also supported from the counter

affidavit of the Accountant General (respondent no.7). A specific

stand has been taken in the letter dated 3.12.2018 issued by the

District General Provident Fund Officer, Madhubani (Annexure-C)

that the entire dues of the petitioner right from the beginning of the

petitioner's service up to his superannuation has been calculated in Patna High Court CWJC No.20142 of 2018 dt.05-08-2021

the manner enumerated therein and accordingly a total of Rs.

1,25,432/- has been paid to him. On the other hand, the petitioner

has not raised any specific grievance with regard to any particular

year or deducted/contributed amount for which the GPF has not

been paid. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the petitioner had

retired as far as on 31.5.1998 and the issue raised in the present

writ petition are issues of fact which cannot be decided

appropriately in the writ petition.

8. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) rishi/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          09.08.2021
Transmission Date