- (1.) HEARD Shri S.N. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and JC to GP -I for the respondent State as also Shri S. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay a total sum of Rs. 1,52,513/ - which is the amount payable to the petitioner together with interest for the financial loss which he had suffered due to faulty and incorrect calculation chart prepared by the respondent Provident Fund Authorities in respect of the amounts of the GPF payable to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the petitioner had to undergo one round of litigation against the respondents on the previous occasion on account of the fact that payment of his entire GPF amount was not forthcoming from the respondents. The dispute raised by the petitioner was considered by this court in WPS No. 558 of 2002 and by order dated 16.4.2002, the concerned authorities of the respondent namely, the District Provident Fund Officer, Palamau was directed to verify and recalculate the GPF amount payable to the petitioner, taking into consideration of the opening balance of the year 1970 -71 as mentioned in the counter -affidavit of the respondents and forward the calculation chart to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of the production of a copy of this order. Though, in compliance with the order, the District Provident Fund Officer, Palamau had made a recalculation of the amounts payable towards GPF and supplied a chart containing calculation made, but it was detected that figure of the closing and opening balance of the year 1970 -71 was altered and thereby, the petitioner had to suffer a loss of Rs. 100/ - which continued to be carried on till the date of his retirement. The petitioner after calculation of his claimed amount by adding interest payable as deficit amount, has assessed the loss of Rs. 1,52,513/ -. The petitioner has demanded payment of the aforesaid amount and filed several representations before the concerned authorities of the respondents, but the same was not considered. Hence, this writ application. Learned counsel adds further that the amount of Rs. 24,587/ - was illegally recovered from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had received excess payment during the tenure of his service. The matter was agitated by the petitioner, which was ultimately reconciled by the respondents themselves that the claim of excess payment was erroneous and no such amount was recoverable from the petitioner. Consequently, the entire deducted amount was refunded to the petitioner but it took almost ten years to return the amount and as such, the petitioner had suffered mental agony and harassment and the petitioner therefore claims that he deserves to be adequately compensated for the mental agony which he was forced to endure during the aforesaid period.
(3.) COUNTER -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State wherein the entire claim of the petitioner has been denied and disputed. It is contended that the calculation followed by recalculation of the amount of the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner was made and the entire amounts under different Heads was duly paid off to the petitioner and no amount of retiral dues is left unpaid. It is also explained that there was no error in the calculation of the payable GPF amount by reckoning the closing and opening balance of the year 1970 -71 and the statement in the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents suggests that the opening balance of the year 1970 -71 was Rs. 3,614/ - and accordingly, the amount which was due and payable to the petitioner towards GPF amount was calculated and paid off to the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner appears to be harping on misconception of facts and imaginary calculation for claim of financial loss of Rs. 1,52,513/ - on the ground of any mistake or alleged alteration in the accounts.;