Disposed¶34

Uttam Sah v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC2 Feb 2024CWJC/12885/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GPF; Teachers Provident Fund; provident fund arrears; statutory interest; stale/delayed claim; post office deposits; superannuation; Headmaster; Madhubani; Bihar; representation dated 04.11.2016; Memo No. 3324 dated 31.10.2016; authority letter no.982 dated 03.11.2003; eight weeks; CWJC No.12885 of 2023; Harish Kumar, J.; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhubani to consider the petitioner's claim in light of his representation dated 04.11.2016 and enclosures, and ensure admissible payment along with statutory interest, preferably within eight weeks from receipt/production of a copy of the order. ¶34

Uttam Sah Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for payment of his admissible provident fund amount along with statutory interest for the financial years 1969-70 to 1976-77 and thereafter for the period from 1978 to 2003. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhubani to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of his representation dated 04.11.2016 and the enclosure made therewith showing the details of his subscription and accumulation of his provident fund account.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The said authority is to ensure the admissible payment along with the statutory interest, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Harish Kumar, J.; NAFR; decided 02-02-2024) in CWJC No.12885 of 2023: A retired Headmaster (superannuated 31.07.2003) sought payment of his admissible GPF with statutory interest for 1969-70 to 1976-77 and thereafter 1978 to 2003. Respondents 4 and 5 stated that GPF from 1976-77 till retirement had been paid (Rs. 2,97,641/- vide authority letter no.982 dated 03.11.2003), and that post-office deposit evidence for the period till November 1976 was unavailable, the claim being raised twenty years after retirement. Respondents 9 and 10 stated that Teachers Provident Fund accounts were submitted to the Education Department in 1976-77 but connecting records could not be traced. Following a press communique (Memo No. 3324 dated 31.10.2016) inviting such claims, the petitioner had filed a representation dated 04.11.2016 with subscription/accumulation details, which remained unpaid. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhubani to consider the claim in light of the representation dated 04.11.2016 and its enclosures and to ensure admissible payment along with statutory interest, preferably within eight weeks from receipt/production of a copy of the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12885 of 2023

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Uttam Sah S/o Late Yogeshwar @ Yogeshwar Sah, @ Yugshwar Sah Resident of Village-Mukhiyapatti, P.S.-Madhwapur, District-Madhubani, presently residing at Meena Bazar, P.O.-Sapta, P.S.-Rahika, District-Madhubani.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Patna, Bihar.

¶8

The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Director, Directorate of Provident Fund, Pant Bhawan, Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The District Provident Fund Officer, Madhubani, District-Madhubani.

¶11

The District Education Officer, Madhubani, District-Madhubani.

¶12

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhubani, DistrictMadhubani.

¶13

The Block Education Extension Officer, Harlakhi, District-Madhubani.

¶14

The Chief Post Master General, G.P.O., Patna.

¶15

The Head Post Master, Harlakhi Post Office, Madhubani.

¶16

... ... Respondent/s

¶17

======================================================

¶18

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhavendra Jha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Ms. Meera Singh, AC to GP-23 For the UoI : Ms. Punam Kumari, Adv.

¶19

======================================================

¶20

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02-02-2024

¶21

Heard Mr. Bhavendra Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Meera Singh, learned counsel for the State. The Union of India is represented by Ms. Punam Kumari, learned counsel.

¶22

The petitioner, who superannuated on 31.07.2003 from the post of Headmaster, Pansalwa, Harlakhi Block, Madhubani, has filed the present writ petition seeking a

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.12885 of 2023 dt.02-02-2024 2/4

¶24

direction upon the respondent(s) to ensure payment of his admissible provident fund amount along with the statutory interest for the financial years 1969-70 to 1976-77 and thereafter for the period from 1978 to 2003.

¶25

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents no. 4 and 5.

¶26

It is submitted on behalf of the respondents no. 4 and 5 that for the period from 1976-77 to till the date of retirement of the petitioner, the admissible GPF amount has already been authorized vide authority letter no.982 dated 03.11.2003 amounting to Rs. 2,97,641/-, and the same has already been paid to the petitioner as is evident from the Treasury Payment Schedule.

¶27

So far as the amount of GPF for the period of 196976 is concerned, the concerned respondent submits that the evidence in support of the deposit of GPF amount till November, 1976, which was deposited in the post office has not been provided by the concerned post office. Hence, the claim of the petitioner raised after twenty years from the date of retirement cannot be entertained.

¶28

A separate counter affidavit has been filed on behalf the respondents no. 9 and 10.

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.12885 of 2023 dt.02-02-2024 3/4

¶30

It is submitted that the amount of all Teachers Provident Fund accounts were submitted to the Education Department of Bihar, in the year 1976-77, albeit the connecting records/documents were traced out but could not find out as the records are too old.

¶31

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submits that in the year 2016, a press communique was issued by the District Programme Officer (Establishment) Madhubani vide Memo No. 3324 dated 31.10.2016, inviting representation from the aggrieved teachers whose GPF amount for the period 1969-1976 has not been paid. In response thereto, the petitioner filed his representation before the District Programme Officer (Establishment) Madhubani on 04.11.2016, enclosing the details of his subscription and accumulation in his provident fund account and amount with interest payable to him till September, 2016 in the prescribed format. Despite the aforesaid representation, the same has not been paid till date. He further submits that the petitioner is an octogenarian and is not in a position to chase the respondent authorities for his entitlement.

¶32

In view of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition stands disposed

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.12885 of 2023 dt.02-02-2024 4/4

¶34

of with a direction to the District Programme Officer (Establishment) Madhubani to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of his representation dated 04.11.2016 and the enclosure made therewith, showing the details of his subscription and accumulation of his provident fund account and ensure the admissible payment along with the statutory interest, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶35

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶36

rohit/-

¶37

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	05-02-2024
Transmission Date

Uttam Sah v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Sah v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mahapunya Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Haidar Ali Vs The State of Bihar

Anjali Banerjee Vs The State of Bihar

Bimal Kumar Bishnoi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Meena Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar