Allowed

Ajay Kumar Sharma and Another v. U T of J and K Th Principal Secretary Finance Deptt and Others

J&K HC11 Dec 2023WP(C)/3072/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners secured High Court sanction for General Provident Fund withdrawals but faced delayed payment from treasury officials. The court issued a mandamus ordering immediate payment within 20 days.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to make immediate payment of sanctioned GP Fund amounts to petitioners within 20 days.

Ajay Kumar Sharma and Another Vs U T of J and K… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | J&K HC (2023)

¶1

Serial No. 09

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

Case:WP(C) No. 3072/2023

¶4

01. Ajay Kumar Sharma ….. Petitioner(s) Aged 52 years S/o Sh. Krishan Lal R/o H. No. 128 Lane No. 2 Sector 3 Gobind Nagar Gole Gujral Road, Jammu. Presently posted as Assistant Registrar, Computer High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Jammu.

¶5

02. Vikas Bharti Aged 50 years S/o Sh. M. R. Bhagat R/o H. No. 224, Sector D Ext., Bharat Nagar, Talab Tillo, Jammu. Presently serving as Assistant Registrar, Computer High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Jammu.

¶6

03. Aftab Ahmed Chauhan Aged 58 years, Son of Nazir Ahmed Chauhan R/o Kiryani Talab, Bathindi Narwal Bala, Jammu. Presently serving as Additional Registrar, High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Jammu.

¶7

Through: Mr. Parimoksh Seth, Advocate.

¶8

¶9

1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, Through Principal Secretary Finance Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar.

¶10

2. Director General Funds Organization, J&K, Jammu.

¶11

3. Director General, Accounts & Treasury, J&K, Jammu.

¶12

2 WP(C) No. 3072/2023

¶13

4. Accounts Officer, District Fund Office, Jammu.

¶14

5. Treasury Officer, District Court Complex, Jammu.

¶15

.…. Respondent(s)

¶16

Through: Mr. K. D. S. Kotwal, Dy. AG.

¶17

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE

¶18

ORDER (11.12.2023)

¶19

01. This writ petition is taken up for disposal at its very inception stage as it does not warrant any reply to be solicited from the respondents’ end given the fact that the petitioners are entitled to receive what has been sanctioned in their favour in terms of their entitlement to withdrawal from their respective General Provident ( in short ‘GP’ ) Fund accounts.

¶20

02. The three petitioners are the officials of the High Court of J&K and Ladakh. The petitioner nos. 1 & 2 are the Assistant Registrars whereas the petitioner no. 3 is an Additional Registrar. All the petitioners have good length of service to their credit which is still in currency and all along the course of which they have subscribed to the GP Fund.

¶21

03. The petitioners put up their case before the Sanctioning Authority i.e. High Court of J&K and Ladakh for sanction under rules 15(1) A(a) & 15(1) B(d) of the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960 for seeking withdrawal of the amounts from their non-refundable GP Fund

¶22

3 WP(C) No. 3072/2023

¶23

accounts on the basis of respective contingencies attending them.

¶24

04. On account of the sanction so accorded, the Assistant Registrar (Accounts) came to issue an Order no. 1199 of 2023/RG/AC dated 12.10.2023 with respect to the petitioner no. 1 for withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 6 lacs out of GP Fund Account no. CC-810008810 for enabling the petitioner no. 1 to defray the expenses on the “higher education of child”.

¶25

05.

¶26

Similarly, with respect to petitioner no. 2, an Order no. 1243 of 2023 dated 19.10.2023 came to be issued for the withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 5 lacs out of GP Fund Account no. CC-810008811 for enabling the petitioner no. 2 to defray the expenses on “repair of house” and with respect to petitioner no. 3 an Order no. 1011 of 2023/RG/AC dated 01.09.2023 thereby sanctioning the withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 8 lacs from the GP Fund account no. CC-810008786 for enabling the petitioner no. 3 to defray the expenses on the “repair of house” came to be issued with copies addressed to all the concerned including Treasury Officer & Chief Accounts Officer, District Fund Office, Jammu.

¶27

06.

¶28

The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the respective sanctions so accorded for withdrawal of the respective sanctioned amount from the GP Fund accounts, the payment of the money is not taking place for no reason whatsoever at the end of the respondents in particular

¶29

4 WP(C) No. 3072/2023

¶30

respondent no. 3 i.e. the Director General, Accounts & Treasury, J&K, Jammu, lending an impression to the petitioners as if there is no money available at the end of the respondent no. 3 to release the respective payments in favour of the petitioners.

07.

08.

09.

It is a matter of concern to know that from SeptemberOctober 2023 the petitioners have been made to wait for the release of the respective amounts sanctioned in their favour. The release of the said amount is to take place from the end of the respondent no. 3 who cannot be heard to put up any avoidance after the sanctioning authority has duly sanctioned the withdrawal of the advances by the petitioners from their respective GP Fund account, to the extent of release of the amount so sanctioned for withdrawal.

¶35

An omission/default on the part of the respondents, in particular respondent no. 3 as well as respondent no. 1, to ensure immediate payment of the respective sanctioned amount in favour of the petitioners is nothing but an illegal denial of payment of money at the end of the said two respondents undermining the respective and entitlement of the petitioners that too for the purpose of meeting contingency. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to earn a ‘writ of mandamus’ from this Court unto the respondents.

¶36

This Court, therefore, directs the respondent nos. 1 & 3 to make the immediate payment of the sanctioned amount in favour of the petitioners out of their respective GP Fund

¶37

5 WP(C) No. 3072/2023

¶38

accounts, and the needful be done at the end of the said two respondents within a period of 20 days from the date of this judgment.

¶39

Mr. K. D. S. Kotwal, the learned Dy. AG, who causes appearance on behalf of the respondents is hereby notified that the direction hereby given unto the respondent nos. 1 & 3 admits no dereliction except at the cost of being in contempt of this Court for acting not in compliance with the timeline hereby being given for the said two respondents to ensure release of the respective amount in favour of the petitioners.

¶40

10.

¶41

11. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of .

¶42

12. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. K. D. S. Kotwal, the learned Dy. AG for notice & compliance at the end of the respondent nos. 1 & 3 under the seal and signature of the Bench Secretary of this Court.

¶43

(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE

JAMMU

11.12.2023

Bunty

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No

¶48

Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

Ajay Kumar Sharma and Another v. U T of J and K Th Principal Secretary Finance Deptt and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Sharma and Another v. U T of J and K Th Principal Secretary Finance Deptt and Others

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

Wazir Kedar Nath Vs State Th.Revenue Deptt.and Ors.

Autar Krishan Vs Owais Ahmed .District Magistrate Shopian and Anr.

Dhian Singh and Others Vs Ut of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Revenue Deptt Another

Nand Kishore Vs Ut of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Deptt of Revenue and Others

Shakuntla Devi and Ors. Vs State Th.Revenue Deptt.and Ors.

Sonam Choudhary Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Revenue Deptt and Ors.