K.K. SUBRAHMANYAN Vs. THE TAHSILDAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER retired as a Deputy Tahsildar on 31/5/2003. His grievance is that inspite of his retirement as early as in 2003, he has not been paid his dues towards General Provident Fund, benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme, Family Benefit Scheme and the revised pension with arrears. According to the petitioner, although he has submitted all documents necessary for processing his claims, respondents 4 and 5 have not taken up his claim with the Accountant General, and that as a result thereof, the amounts due to the petitioner still remains unpaid.

(2.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk from whose office the petitioner retired from service. According to the Tahsildar, before joining the 1st respondent's office, petitioner had worked in more than 13 offices. It is stated that to settle his claim towards GPF, SLI and GIS, details credited to each account is essential to calculate and submit the claim amount. 1st respondent says that among the 14 offices, only 5 offices have furnished his account details till date and therefore, he could not calculate and submit the claim amount. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for GPF dues is concerned, it is stated that the submission of a closure application with the signature and thumb impression of the person concerned is an essential requirement, and that despite requests made, the petitioner has not submitted a closure application. In so far as the pension revision claimed by the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that if the petitioner has to be assigned seniority, since seniority list is not available in the office, it is open to the petitioner to submit the details, so that necessary entries can be made in the service book and that the matter can be taken up with the Accountant General to consider the issue of authorising payment of this claim as well.

(3.) AS far as the collection of details in the office where the petitioner had previously worked is concerned, petitioner being a retired employee cannot be made to suffer on account of delay, if any, in collecting the details from his earlier offices. If in response to the 1st respondent's letters, details were not furnished by the respective officers, instead of expressing his helplessness in the matter, 1st respondent should have taken up the matter with the higher authorities and compelled the officers in charge of the respective offices to furnish the details. This has not been done by the 1st respondent, and therefore, the helplessness expressed by the 1st respondent in this respect cannot be appreciated.