Disposed

Sachida Nand Pandey v. Water Resources Department

Jharkhand HC11 Mar 2014WPC/2016/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition concerning non-payment of provident fund dues. It granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Provident Fund Officer with necessary documents to finalize the balance dues and interest.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to approach Respondent No. 5 (District Provident Fund Officer) for redressal of grievances regarding balance provident fund dues and interest, supported by facts and docu

Sachida Nand Pandey Vs Water Resources… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2016 of 2013

¶2

Sachida Nand Pandey -------Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand through Chief --Secretary, Government of Jharkhand & others ----- Respondents

¶5

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

¶6

For the Petitioner: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate For the State: JC to GP-IV

¶7

¶8

06/ 11.03.2014 Heard counsel for the parties.

¶9

The simple grievance of the petitioner raised in the present writ application is in relation to non-payment of the entire amount of provident fund dues along with statutory interest after he has retired as Assistant Engineer on 30^th April 2010 from the respondent-Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand.

¶10

According to the petitioner, though he has been paid provident fund dues for certain periods of his posting, but the P.F. dues for his posting from 1979 to July 1986 at Gumla; from 1986 to June 1993 under Swarnrekha Multi purpose Project, Jamshedpur, from July 1993 to December 1996 under Waterways Division, Gaya, for the period 1997 to December 2000 at Division No. II, Patna, as also for the periods 2001 to 2003 and from 2005 to 2010, have remained unpaid. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, for the periods 2001 to 2003 and from 2005 to 2010, the said dues have been paid.

¶11

Though, counter affidavit has been filed, but the same is not on record. It appears that the said counter affidavit has inadvertently been filed in WPS No. 2037/2013 instead of the present writ application. Office is therefore required to make necessary correction in the nomenclature of the counter affidavit and annex the same to the instant writ application.

¶12

However, according to the respondents, they have undertaken correspondence from the concerned places / offices seeking details of deduction

¶13

of provident fund amount from the petitioner's salary by letter no. 3984 dated 19^th June 2013 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur, District Magistrate, Gaya, District Magistrate, Patna and Treasury Officer, Ranchi respectively.

¶14

Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the respondents, it appears that the respondents are in the process of undertaking an exercise to finalize the provident fund dues of the petitioner since June 2013. However, much time has elapsed by now thereafter. In that view of the matter, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, the same is being disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent no. 5 -District Provident Fund Officer, Ranchi for redressal of the grievances relating to the balance provident fund dues along with the statutory interest, duly supported with necessary facts and documents. On receipt of such representation, the respondent no. 5 shall finalize the said exercise which is underway, as per the respondent, and upon receipt of details of the deductions from the respective offices where the petitioner had worked earlier, take a decision in the matter, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with the copy of this order.

¶15

Needless to say, dependent upon such exercise, the admissible balance provident fund dues along with statutory interest be released in favour of the petitioner without further delay.

¶16

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶17

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

¶18

Ranjeet/

Sachida Nand Pandey v. Water Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachida Nand Pandey v. Water Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siblal Marandi Vs Road Construction

Mrinmoy Das Vs Human Resources Department

Savita Devi Vs Water Resources Departement

Ramani Devi and Anr. Vs Mineral Area Development Authority Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Directors And Ors.

MD Hanif Vs Mineral Area Development Authority Through Its Chairman And Ors.

Anar Devi and Anr. Vs The Mineral Area Development Authority Represented Through Its Managing Director And Anr.