Contempt proceedings disposed as facts regarding missing GPF records are highly disputed. No ground to continue proceedings; applicant may agitate for dues if records are produced.
Contempt proceedings disposed of; applicant left open to agitate for GPF amount subject to production of records.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 59
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3301 of 2016
Applicant :- Jainandan Tripathi Opposite Party :- Rakesh Kumar, District Basic Education Officer Counsel for Applicant :- Purushottam Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh,J.P. Singh
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the erstwhile BSA and Sri J.P. Singh who appears for the Manager.
This Court on 18 February 2016 had disposed of a petition granting liberty to the applicant to make a representation for release of the GPF amounts. Pursuant to the orders issued by this Court, both the BSA as well as the management have filed their affidavits. The BSA in terms of an affidavit dated 7 September 2016 has brought on record an order dated 11 August 2016 upholding the claim of the applicant for grant of GPF dues. This aspect has been reiterated by the then BSA in his affidavit of 8 December 2016. However, in paragraph 7 of this affidavit, it is averred that the respondent opposite parties are unable to release the dues since the requisite papers have not been forwarded by the management. The Manager of the institution has filed a detailed affidavit and in paragraphs 16 thereof he has averred that although charge of Headmaster was given to the applicant on 22 September 2012 and on which date an inventory/list was also drawn which included the GPF register, after the applicant had
demitted office, these records have not been found. The management has gone on to state that the almirah in which the record was kept was itself unlocked in the presence of the Assistant Collector. The allegation in essence is that it is the applicant who has taken away the record. Although a rejoinder affidavit has been filed today, the Court notes that in reply to paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, all that is averred is that false averments have been made and in respect of which a First Information Report has been lodged. There are thus highly disputed questions which are raised by competing parties.
In light of the aforesaid, the Court finds no ground to continue these proceedings in contempt which shall stand disposed of.
Notwithstanding the closure of these proceedings, it is left open to the applicant to agitate for the GPF amount subject to production of the relevant records. Order Date :- 22.5.2018 LA/-
Jainandan Tripathi
Rakesh Kumar
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
