Jugeshwar Seth Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 3 : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, P.L. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Ashwani Shukla, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

¶16

15/09/2025

¶17

The Petitioner has f i led this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the Respondents in not paying the whole retiral dues payable to the Petitioner. He also seeking the following relief:

¶18

2

¶19

10.1- This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition directing the respondents to pay Rs.24,500/together with interest @ 18% per annum and cost of the petition. Furthermore, compensation for mental agony etc. at Rs.1,00,000/- be also granted and time bound direction made to the Respondents.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier filed petition claiming retiral dues which was registered as WPS No.3565/2011 and was decided on 06.07.2011 with a direction to the respondents to decide the matter of the Petitioner. She further submits that the retiral dues of the petitioner is still pending for Rs.24,500/- which is payable with interest @ 18% per annum and cost of the petition, therefore, suitable direction may be given to the Respondents.

¶21

On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the State/ Respondents No.1 to 3 submits that vide order dated 06.07.2011 of this Court, High Power Retirement committee was constituted to decide the matter of the Petitioner and the High Power Committee vide its resolution dated 12.03.2012, came into the conclusion that the petitioner has been paid the entire GPF amount along-with the interest and there is no discrepancy found in the departmental records and the records of the Accountant General and no dues is pending to the petitioner thereby rejected the further claim of GPF of the Petitioner.

¶22

Citing the reply dated 19.03.2015 and affidavit dated 31.01.2025, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 duly submits that the entire GPF balance of Rs.39,836/- inclusive of interest is authorised to the subscriber/petitioner, therefore, no action remains to be taken on the part of Respondent No.4.

¶23

3

¶24

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.

¶25

In accordance with the resolution dated March 12, 2012, passed by the High Power Retirement Committee, it was determined that the Petitioner, who retired as a teacher on October 31, 2004, had claimed underpayment of his General Provident Fund (GPF). After conducting thorough hearings and scrutinizing the records from both the department and the Accountant General's office, the Committee concluded that the Petitioner had been paid the correct GPF amount along with interest, as per the applicable rules. Consequently, the Committee rejected the Petitioner's claim for additional GPF payment, finding no discrepancies in the payment made. Upon reviewing the matter, this Court finds no illegality or error in the Committee's resolution.

¶26

Accordingly, the Petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.

¶27

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶28

Judge

¶29

Shubham

Jugeshwar Seth v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jugeshwar Seth v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Sahin @ Sahil Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chetan Das Sahu Vs Narottam Kumar Sahu

Md. Yakub Alias Gore Vs Mukhtar Ahmad Iraki

State of Chhattisgarh Vs a

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajesh Kumar

Deepesh Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh