Sudhir Agarwal - (1.) HEARD Sri A. N. Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.
(2.) IN short the grievance of the petitioner is that he retired from the post of Boring Mechanic in the year 1999 from the department of Minor Irrigation, State of U. P. However, his outstanding dues of General Provident Fund (in short 'G.P.F.') has not been paid by the respondents despite several representations and therefore, present writ petition has been filed. The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have filed a counter-affidavit annexing copy of the letter dated 23.3.2004 stating that 90% amount of G.P.F. has been paid to the petitioner. The 10% amount of G.P.F. could not have been paid since authorization from the office of Accountant General has not been received though letter was already sent on 23.3.2004 and as soon as the said authorization is received, rest of the amount shall also be paid to the petitioner. Sri Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the correctness of the aforesaid statement that 90% amount of G.P.F. has been paid to the petitioner. However, he submits that rest 10% amount of G.P.F. which is lying with the respondents has not been paid till date without any lawful reason.
(3.) THE Accountant General, U. P., Allahabad, impleaded as respondent No. 4, has also filed a counter-affidavit stating that 90% amount of G.P.F. is to be paid by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer and after payment thereof the sanctioning authority shall forward the case to the office of the Accountant General alongwith necessary papers for authorization of residual 10% amount of G.P.F. It is further stated that probably 90% amount of G.P.F. has not been paid by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer though it has been asked to make the said payment vide respondent No. 4's letter dated 13.4.2004, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit. The dispute is thus confined only to payment of 10% residual amount of G.P.F. As per the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 the same could not have been paid on account of non-receipt of authorization from the office of the Accountant General, U. P., Allahabad. The defence of the respondent No. 4 is that even 90% amount of G.P.F. appears to have not been paid by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer and they have not sought any authorization from the respondent No. 4. From the record, on the contrary, it appears that the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, U. P., while disbursing 90% amount of G.P.F. vide his order dated 23.3.2004, sent a copy thereof, to the Accountant General, U. P., Allahabad with the request to send authorization letter for payment of 10% residual amount of G.P.F. and the said letter is said to have been sent by registered post. Though the counter-affidavit has been filed on 26.7.2004 but it appears to have been prepared in April, 2004 though sworn on 5.5.2004. Nothing has been said about the letter sent by the Office of Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation. Further in para 9 of the counter-affidavit, the respondent No. 4 has said that the correct G.P.F. account number was not informed to it and the Account No. D.E.V.U./1850 was old account series which is now defunct. The said defence is clearly misleading and cannot be accepted for the reason that in the letter dated 23.3.2004 of the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, the G.P.F. Account No. D.E.V.U.-1757 has been mentioned against which 90% payment has been made to the petitioner, therefore, this Court is fully satisfied that the respondent No. 4 is guilty of total inaction and laches on its part for failing to issue the requisite authorization to the competent authority so as to enable it to make payment of 10% residual amount of G.P.F. to the petitioner. The inaction on the part of the respondent No. 4 is clearly unjust, without any lawful reason and the defence taken in the counter-affidavit is not only flimsy but even otherwise is incorrect.;