M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) PURSUANT to order dated 24.6.2002 the District Education Officer, Chaibasa and District Provident Fund Officer, Chaibasa have appeared in person. For better appreciation the order dated 24.6.2002 is quoted hereinabelow : The petitioner retired as a teacher in 1999. He was paid Provident Fund amount for the period 1986 till the date of retirement. He was not paid his Provident Fund amount which was deposited before 1986. The District Provident Fund Officer, Chaibasa in his counter -affidavit has not disputed the claim of the petitioner but his stand is that the Provident Fund amount for the period prior to 1986 is payable to the petitioner at the instance of the District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa. While the District Superintendent of Education in his counter affidavit has stated that the District Provident Fund Officer is liable to pay the said amount. In the background these two counter affidavit, I direct the District Superintendent of Education and the District Provident Fund Officer. Chaibasa to take all possible steps and released the Provident Fund amount which is payable to the petitioner for the period prior to 1986. Till the Provident Fund amount is paid to the petitioner, both the officers shall not withdraw their salary and shall not claim TA/DA while appearing in Court either today or in the next date. Put up this case on 15th July, 2002. On that day, both the District Superintendent of Education and the District Provident Fund Officer, Chaibasa shall appear in person before this Court along with cheque for the Provident Fund amount, which is payable to the petitioner. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the JC to Addl. AG."
(2.) TODAY both the officers have produced a draft of Rs. 1,08743 (One lac eight thousand seven hundred forty three) vide cheque No. 216413 being the provident fund amount legally payable to the petitioner which has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. It is therefore, evident as to how the retired employees are being harassed by the officers like the present District Provident Fund Officer, Chaibasa and the District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa. In the affidavit filed today the details as to how the amount has been calculated, has not been furnished. The respondents are therefore directed to furnish the detailed account of the Provident Fund amount to the petitioner within two weeks from today.
(3.) TIME and again the Supreme Court and the different High Courts have held that Provident Fund is the hard earned money of the employees and it is not bounty or charity which is paid by the government. It is only because of the inaction and negligence on the part of the officers the retired employees are deprived of their Provident Fund amount.;