Disposed

Kunjal Ram Rajwade, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Sept 2020WPS/3695/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner, a retired employee, approached the High Court challenging the withholding of the balance of his General Provident Fund by the Accountant General. The court directed the Accountant General to decide the claim within 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Accountant General of Chhattisgarh to decide the petitioner's claim within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Kunjal Ram Rajwade, Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPS No. 3695 of 2020

¶4

Kunjal Ram Rajwade, S/o Late Shri Gokul Ram, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Pida, Post Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶8

Accountant General Of Chhattisgarh, Zero Point, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Director, Department Of Health Service, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Chief Medical Officer, District Hospital, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh

¶11

Block Medical Officer, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner	: Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondents/ State	: Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent No. 2	: Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶15

Order

¶16

18.09.2020

¶17

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner retired on 30.06.2017 and at the time of retirement he was having positive balance of Rs. 8,08,829/-, however instead of releasing the amount in totality Accountant General Office has issued a letter for less payment of amount of Rs. 4,11,418/- by deduction.

¶18

Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that as per Annexure P-3, the Block Medical Officer clarified the fact that no withdrawal has been made by the petitioner, therefore the claim of the petitioner may be decided by sending it to the concerned respondent.

¶19

Perusal of document filed by the petitioner would show that it is not in dispute that the petitioner retired on 30.06.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner having not been

¶20

paid the entire GPF amount certain correspondence were made and on 23.01.2019 (Annexure P-3) the Block Medical Officer Surguja clarified the fact that the petitioner has not withdrawn all the amounts, however, despite there being no withdrawal to the extent as projected by the petitioner, the amount has been withheld by the Accountant General Office.

¶21

Considering the fact that the petitioner stands retired on 30.06.2017 and on the basis of the letter dated 23.01.2019 (Annexure P-3) , it is directed that Accountant General of Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) shall decide the claim of the petitioner within a further period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶25

Jyoti

Kunjal Ram Rajwade, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjal Ram Rajwade, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendra Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Ratni Bai Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Punita Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Firat Ram Kenwat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Balooram Kosaria Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh