Joyce Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:34771

¶3

Digitally signed by AYUSHI AYUSHI SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.07.24 10:55:14 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 4864 of 2019

¶7

1 - Joyce Patel D/o Late Shri G.B. Patel Aged About 67 Years R/o Grace Home, Ring, Road, No. 2, Jarhbhata, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Deapartment Of Health And Family Welfare, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - The Director Directorate Health Services, Third Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - The Accountant General Of Chhattisgarh Zero Point , Balodabazar, Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - The Superintendent Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science (Cims) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Superintendent District Hospital,

¶14

2

¶15

Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Alok Chandra Rishi, Advocate For State/ Respondent No. : Mr. Ritesh Giri, PL 1, 2, 4 and 5 For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate

¶17

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

22/07/2025

¶20

This case has been short listed for referral to the Special Mediation Drive-Mediation for the Nation.

¶21

Learned counsel for both the parties submit that there is no chance of settlement between the parties in the instant petition.

¶22

In view of above, this case is not referred for mediation in Mediation Drive - Mediation for the Nation.

¶23

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶24

By the present writ petition, the petitioner who was working as a Nursing Sister and retired in the year 2011, from the said post after attaining the age of superannuation, seeking direction towards the respondent authorities to settle the final GPF amount in accordance with the deductions which have already made from the salary of petitioner along with penal interest of 2.5% per annum on balance amount of GPF.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner served the respondent Department for 40-42 years, but, after retirement, she came to know that her amount of GPF contribution has not been

¶26

3

¶27

deposited by the respondent Department in her GPF account maintained by the Office of Accountant General/ Respondent No.3. He further submits that petitioner had filed application before the respondent Department to provide her document with regard to deduction of her contribution, but, no document has been provided by respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 by saying that records of the said years are not available. Hence, it is prayed that relief sought for by the petitioner may be directed to be granted to the petitioner.

¶28

Per contra , learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 submits that alleged contribution of GPF of petitioner is said to be of the year 1980-1981 and few months of some other years, which is more than 20 years prior to retirement of petitioner. If amount of GPF contribution was not deposited in the office of Accountant General then, petitioner ought to have taken recourse to law at appropriate time, but, after about more than 20 years seeking such relief cannot be held appropriate as 40 years old records are not available with the respondent Department.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5 are main contesting party and why missing amount of contribution of GPF of petitioner has not been deposited by the Department, it can only be clarified by the Department itself.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record.

¶31

Taking into consideration the fact that the grievance of the petitioner which is said to be about 20 years prior to filing of instant petition. If contribution of petitioner was not deposited by the

¶32

4

¶33

respondent Department in her GPF account, then she ought to have been vigilant and taken appropriate steps within appropriate time, however, the same has not been done and the petitioner raised this issue after more than 20 years, I do not feel inclined to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court entertaining belated relief sought for by the petitioner. Hence, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

¶34

SD/-

¶35

( Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi )

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Ayushi

Joyce Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joyce Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gautam Bohra (Jain) Vs Kamla Dewangan

Reejhan Ram Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Madhu Dwivedi Vs Ashwani Kumar Bharadwaj

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Parvati Sahu

Smt. Parvati Sahu Vs Ramkumar Yadav

Sheela Tandi @ Sheela Pal Vs Pradyut Pal (Dead) through Pankaj Pal