MOTIRAM SONA BHOLE Vs. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Returnable forthwith. By consent Rule is called out for hearing and heard.

(2.) THE petitioner retired from the service of Railway Police under the State Government with effect from 1st May 1985 and it is his grievance that at the time of settling his general provident fund account a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has been wrongfully withheld. The first Respondent, Accountant General, noticed that the petitioner had been given a non-refundable advance of Rs. 500/- by the Deputy I. G. P. and R. CID, M. S. , Pune on 29th September 1973 for additions, alterations and repairs of his house. The first instalment of Rs. 250/- was paid to him vide Pune Treasury V. R. No. 683 of 4/74. Since the debit of the second instalment of the advance paid to the petitioner had not appeared in his G. P. F. account, nor was their any order of cancellation of the second instalment of non-refundable advance, the Accountant General withheld an amount of Rs. 2,000/- while authorising final payment to the petitioner. Simultaneously, the first Respondent, Accountant General, made a reference to the second respondent to furnish the full particulars, such as, Treasury Voucher No. and date of second instalment of the non-refundable advance, if paid to the petitioner and, if not, the second respondent was requested to furnish the reasons for non-payment along with a copy of the cancellation of the second instalment, if such was the case. Three such letters were addressed by the first respondent to the second respondent on 31st July 1985, 28th January 1987 and 27th June 1996 and, unfortunately for the petitioner, none of these letters was replied, nor was the information called for by the Accountant General's office furnished. Consequently, the Accountant General was not able to finalise the general provident fund payment to the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 2,000/- remained unpaid to the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner addressed a letter dated 7th October 1996 to the learned Chief Justice which was treated as a Suo Motu Writ Petition and assigned to this Court. Even after the notice before Admission was issued in this petition, there has been considerable delay because the respondents either did not appear before the Court, or were not in a position to place the correct facts and circumstances before the Court. In fact, the presence of the concerned officers had to be secured before this Court by specific directions issued, the failure to comply with which resulted in contempt notices being issued to both the Respondents.