Daitari Nayak v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to correct his Provident Fund account reflecting actual deposits for year 2000-2001. The Court observed a long delay in response and directed compliance with earlier correspondence.
What did the court decide?
Directions to opposite parties to comply with the letter dated 02.02.2005 to correct the Provident Fund account.
What the court decided
W.P.(C) No. 8011 of 2008
- 08.07.2019 Heard Mr. S. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Addl. Government Advocate.
The petitioner has filed this application seeking for a direction to opposite parties no. 2 and 3 to cause correction of the account in the petitioner’s P.F. account reflecting the actual deposit made on behalf of the petitioner, taking into account the details provided in Annexure-2.
Mr. S. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner states that vide Annexure-2 the account slip issued in favour of the petitioner for the financial year 2000-2001 is wrong, which needs correction. But after several correspondences, the same has not been corrected.
Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Addl. Government Advocate relying upon the paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit states that after receiving information from the opposite party no.3, the same will be carried on.
Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records it appears that the petitioner has been working as Laboratory Attendant in the Chemistry Department of B.N.M.A. College Paliabindha in the District of Bhadrak and he subscribes to Employees General Provident Fund bearing account no. 0010630/CE. The opposite party no.3 has not maintaining the annual account statement of the petitioner regularly and the accounts furnished so far as faulty and do not account for the money deducted from the petitioner’s salary and deposited with the authorities towards contribution to the Provident Fund. It is stated that the Principal of the College vide Annexure-2 has wrote a letter to the Asst. Director (DP)
office of the Director of Higher Education, Orissa for correction of account slip issued in favour of the petitioner, but the same has not been complied with, therefore, the petitioner has filed this application. On the basis of notice issued by this Court, the opposite parties entered appearance and filed counter affidavit. In paragraph-6 it is stated as follows:
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Respondents need to correct the petitioner's Provident Fund account to reflect the actual deposits made.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
Director of Higher Education, Orissa
- respondent
Controlling Authority, Employees' Provident Fund
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court