PARWATI KHARE Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy that began with an accentauted bang agony and exposing anguish of a retired employee cannot be allowed to end with a whimper. Submission of Mr. Ramesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the beginning there was a cavil with regard to payment of GPF and when the matter was sub-judice, the payment has been made, but it cannot be said that the base is totally wiped off and the whole action is much ado about nothing inasmuch a retired employee harbours hortative hope to get the GPF at the earliest so that he can sustain himself. Submission of Mr. Shrivastava is that this is a fit case for imposition of exemplary costs, as the authorities have behaved in a cavalier fashion taking the path of deviancy and disrespect for the rule of law.

(2.) SUBMISSION of Mr. Sanjay Yadav, learned Government Advocate, is that there was certain dispute and, therefore, delay was caused and without affording opportunity for reconciliation of the account, the concept of cost is not attracted and imposition of cost would only create a concavity in the process of adjustment or reconciliation of account.

(3.) WITH the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.