BRAJA KISHORE SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has come up with this Original Application praying for a direction to respondent no.3 to issue appropriate revised authorised letter in favour of the applicant as per Annexure -1 to enable the applicant to make final withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 3,19,469/ - from his G.P.F. account.

(2.) THE case of the applicant as revealed in his Original Application may be described in brief as follows: The applicant had entered into govt. service as an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation and Power Department and after successfully completing his service period retired from govt. service on superannuation w.e.f. 30.6.2004. After his retirement he made correspondences to the respondents for his pensionary and other retiral dues. The applicant was supplied with a detailed statement of his G.P.F. account dated 16.7.2004 at Annexure -' 1 for claiming withdrawal of the deposit. The accounts statement at Annexure -1 clearly indicates that the closing balance of the P.F. Account of the applicant on the date of his retirement was Rs. 3,19,469/ -. On the basis of information at Annexure -1 the applicant made several applications at Annexure -2 series to respondent no.3 for final withdrawal of the amount available in his G.P.F. Account. But the Accounts Officer in the establishment of respondent No.3 opened unnecessary correspondence with different Drawing and Disbursing Officers of the applicant relating to information as old as 20 years. Finally respondent no.3 in his letter dated 28.10.2005 at Annexure -3 intimated that the applicant was authorized to draw only a sum of Rs, 91,096/ - towards final withdrawal from his G.P.F. account. It was disclosed in the said letter (Annexure -3) that the applicant's closing balance in the year 1983 -84 was inflated by a sum of Rs. 27,212/ - and this amount along with interest thereon comes to 2,61,440/ -. It was also intimated to the applicant that during the year 1996 -97 a sum of Rs. 3,500/ - was excess allowed towards interest which was deducted along with interest amounting to Rs. 7954/ -. Thus the total amount deducted was Rs. 2,69,394/ - reflecting the balance of Rs. 91,096/ - to be paid to the applicant. Being faced with financial hardship the applicant was forced to receive Rs. 91,096/ - under protest and thereafter again wrote to respondent no.3 on 10.1.2006 at Annexure -5. In response to the letter of the applicant respondent No.3, sent a letter on 12.12.2005 at Annexure -7 addressed to the applicant justifying the deduction. The applicant moved this Tribunal in O.A. No. 109/2006 challenging the illegal action of the respondents. This Tribunal by its order dated 9.2.2006 disposed of the O.A. with a direction to respondent No.3 to give reply to the representation of the applicant and only after that order of the Tribunal the respondent No. 3 furnished a copy of the letter dated 12.12.2005 to the applicant at Annexure -7 dated 14.3.2006. On receipt of the letter of the respondent no.3 the applicant again filed O.A. No. 555/2006 in this Tribunal. This O.A. was disposed of by the order dated 11.5.2006 at Annexure -8 with a direction to dispose of the representation of the applicant by a speaking order. Though the applicant had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 19,200/ - from his G.P.F. account in the year 1983 -84 the voucher relating to such withdrawal was received by the office of the applicant during the very year and it is respondent no.3 who was responsible for not taking such withdrawal into account in the appropriate column while issuing statement of account for the year. The respondent No.3 therefore again reopened the issue long after 20 years. Similarly payment of Rs. 3,500/ - excess towards interim withdrawal made in the year 1996 -97 is also due to the negligence of respondent no.3 and for that the applicant should not be allowed to suffer 8 years thereafter.

(3.) RESPONDENT No.1 in its separate counter has stated that this is a matter between the applicant and respondent no.3 and respondent no.1 is no way connected with the matter. This Tribunal by order dated 6.5.2008 disposed of the O.A. directing the applicant and the respondent no.3 to meet on an appointed date by mutual consent and respondent no.3 would cause the relevant information along with the ledger account to be placed before the applicant to explain how the balance was wrongly arrived at. The applicant was given the liberty to take the assistance of a professional accountant or a lawyer if he so desired. This order was challenged by the applicant in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 17653/2008. Their Lordships by order dated 25.3.2010 set aside the order of this Tribunal and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication and that is how the matter is now before me.