- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred for getting sanctioned more amount than what has been sanctioned by the respondents for the alleged marriage of the son of the present petitioner from the corpus of Provident Fund of the petitioner. The amount which was already sanctioned and has been paid to be petitioner is Rs. 3,42,700/ - (Three Lacs Forty Two thousand and Seven Hundred) for the marriage of the son of the present petitioner. Marriage was to be solemnized somewhere, in the Month of December, 2008. but, till today, neither marriage has been solemnized nor any new date is fixed.
(2.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is entitled maximum 25% of the total corpus in the account of the present petitioner under Coalmines Provident Fund Scheme, 1948, as per the counter -affidavit filed by the respondents. The said corpus in the account of the present petitioner at Rs. 13,71,120/ - (Thirteen Lacs Seventyone Thousand and One Hundred Twenty) and, therefore, the lecjally payable amount for the marriage of the son of the present petitioner has already been paid to the petitioner at Rs. 3,42,700/ - (Three Lacs Forty Two Thousand and Seven Hundred) by account payee chegue. This amount has already been encashed by the petitioner, but, neither the marriage has been solemnized nor any account has been given in the form of Utilization Certificate, as required to be given by the petitioner to the respondents, as per Paragraph -65F(5) of Coalmines Provident Fund Scheme, 1948. In view of the fact of limitation of 25% and as the amount is already received and as there is no marriage solemnized nor even it is fixed in near future, I am not inclined to issue any writ or order or direction for grant of additional amount to the present petitioner than what has been given by the respondents.
(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount shown in the accounts of the present petitioner under Coalmines Provident Fund Scheme, 1948, is much lesser, than what it ought to have been. This contention is not accepted by this Court in Writ Jurisdiction mainly for the reason that a highly disputed question of fact has arisen, which requires a detail evidence to be taken, especially, to the effect whether the correct figure deposited in a Coalmines Provident Fund account of the present petitioner is Rs. 13,71,120/ - (Thirteen Lacs Seventy One Thousand and One Hundred Twenty) or it should be more and if the said amount is much more than what is stated by the respondents, then further evidence is aiso required i.e. to what extent it is to be enhanced and who has deposited this amount or that the petitioner is at iiberty to prefer an application under Coalmines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948. Thus a separate machinery has already been created under the aforesaid Act, 1948. Even, there is a provision for preferring an appeal under the said Act, 1948.;