STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. Vs. JETHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, decreeing suit of the plaintiff for declaration and mandatory injunction, the defendant-State has approached this court by way of instant appeal. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal, as recorded by the learned first appellate court in its impugned judgment, are that the plaintiff filed civil suit against the defendants for declaration, to the effect that he was entitled to G.P.F. statements pertaining to A/c No. HR/Edu/11024, HR/GA/14080 and HR/GA/18026 from 1972-73 to 30.9.2001 i.e. the date of his retirement and he was also entitled to the arrears of amount of GPF and additional D.A., found due to him alongwith compound interest @ 18% per annum, from the date of amount found due upto the date of actual payment, with mandatory injunction directing the defendants to supply the copies of G.P.F. statements, pertaining to the A/c No. HR/Edu/11024, HR/GA/14080 and HR/GA/18026 from 1972-73 to 30.9.2001 i.e. the date of his retirement and to render the accounts, besides to pay arrears of amount found due against the GPF and additional DA to him alongwith compound interest @ 18% per annum from the date of amount of arrears found due upto the date of actual payment and to pay the amount of damages suffered by him on account of mental pain and agony to be assessed by the learned court, with the averments that on 30.9.2001 he retired from the post of A.E.T.O. on superannuation. On 21.9.1962, he joined in the Haryana Education and his GPF Account number was HR/Edu/11024 and he served in the said department upto 5/1972. Thereafter, he joined Excise and Taxation Department, Haryana on 26.5.1972 and his G.P.F. Account No. HR/Edu/11024 remained in the said department upto 3/1974. Later on, GPF Account Number HR/GA/14080 was allotted to him and the said account remained upto 12/1975. Thereafter, GPF Account No. HR/GA/18026 was reallotted to him and this G.P.F. Account number continued upto the date of his retirement. It was further averred that on 16.3.1978, he wrote a letter to defendant No. 3, demanding his G.P.F. Account statements for the year 1972-73 to 1976-77, but he foiled to give reply of the said letter. He also wrote letter dated 16.1.1979 to defendant No. 3 and it informed him vide letter dated 6.2.1979 that "out of the remaining missing credits, credits for 12/75, 5/76, 6/76, 1/77 and 4/77 amounting to Rs. 350/- had also been traced out and would be adjusted in the year 1978-79 and efforts were being made to trace out the remaining missing credits from 9/72 to 5/73". Defendant No. 3 vide its letter dated 19.7.1979 written as "Discrepancy in G.P. Fund Account HR/GA/18026". In continuation to its letter dated 6.2.1979 again required the details of deductions from 9/72 to 5/73 duly certified by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Gurgaon, for adjusting these credits in G.P.F. Account No. HR/GA/18026. In reference to letter dated 19.7.1979, he again sent the deductions from 9/72 to 5/73 and requested defendant No. 3 to send the G.P.F. Statement for the year 1972-73 to 1978-79. Defendant No. 3 in response to his letter dated 27.9.1979 had written letter No. FDS 12/HR/GA/79-80/2216-17 to the Branch Officer Incharge Fund X Section (L) on the subject "Discrepancy in A/c No. HR/GA/18026 of Shri Jethu Ram Jain" with the request to transfer the G.P.F. deductions from A/c No. HR/Edu/11024. In November, 1999, he requested defendant No. 3 to update his G.P.F. Fund credits as well as enhanced instalments of DA's from the year 1972-73 upto date and issued year wise statements with upto date interest from 1972-73 to 31.3.2001, but instead of issuing year wise statements, the opening balance in the year 1999-2000 was shown Rs. 2,77,273/- arbitrarily and without providing an opportunity of being heard. On 11.1.2002, 21.2.2002 and 10.1.2006 he again demanded the complete details of credits from the year 1972-73 to 31.3.2001, but the office of defendant No. 3 had not issued the same for the reasons best known to defendant No. 3. Thereafter, he served a legal notice dated 22.6.2006 upon the defendants, but of no avail. Hence, this suit.

(2.) On notice, the defendants appeared and filed their joint and separate written statements. In their written statement, defendants No. 1 and 2 raised preliminary objections regarding limitation, cause of action and improper valuation etc.

(3.) On merits, it was submitted that the payment of G.P.F. to a retired employee was to be disbursed by defendant No. 3. The copy of G.P.F. statement of each year, to each Government employee to whom the G.P.F. account number was allotted, was delivered by the office of defendant No. 3 so that the discrepancy, if any, as pointed out by the Government employee may be rectified. The plaintiff must also have received the G.P.F. statement of each year during his service, but no discrepancy of any kind during the service period had been pointed out by him. All other averments made in the plaint were also controverted and the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff was prayed for.