1 2025:CGHC:58719 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9335 of 2023 1 - Rajeshwar Singh Rajput S/o Shri Karan Singh Rajput Aged About 62 Years Resident Of Mig- 84, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Accountant General Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Principal Government Higher Secondary School Tifra, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. G. P. Mathur, Advocate For State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 03/12/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to issue authority letter for payment of total amount of Rs. 22,03,333/- as mentioned in the pass book within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to add missing deduction as shown in account slip (Annexure P-4) in the final balance and further direction may be issued to grant balance accordingly, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted” 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner served as a Lecturer at the Government Higher Secondary School, Parsada, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, and retired from service on 31.05.2023. As per the petitioner’s GPF passbook, the closing balance on the date of retirement stood at Rs. 22,03,333/-. The Office of the Accountant General also issued an account slip reflecting a balance of Rs. 20,32,812/- as on 31.03.2023. However, contrary to the figures mentioned in the passbook and their own earlier record, the Office of the Accountant General has now issued an authority letter sanctioning only Rs. 19,39,383/- for payment, vide letter dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure P-1), without assigning any reason for such reduction. This unexplained deduction has resulted in the petitioner being deprived of his legitimate retiral dues, thereby adversely affecting his financial position post-retirement. It is further submitted that certain deductions reflected in the passbook are missing from the account slip, and therefore the same ought to be included in the final computation. In these circumstances, the petitioner prays for a direction to issue an authority letter for release of the full amount of Rs. 22,03,333/- as recorded in the passbook, giving rise to the present petition. 3 3. Mr. G. P. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable, and unconstitutional. It is contended that the petitioner’s GPF passbook clearly reflects a balance of Rs. 22,03,333/- as on the date of retirement, and even the account slip issued by the Office of the Accountant General shows a balance of Rs. 20,32,812/- as on 31.03.2023. However, in complete contradiction to their own records, the Office of the Accountant General has now issued an authority letter sanctioning only Rs. 19,39,383/- for payment, without furnishing any justification for such reduction. It is argued that this unexplained curtailment of the petitioner’s legitimate retiral dues has resulted in serious financial hardship immediately after retirement, thereby adversely affecting his rights. Counsel therefore submits that the impugned action deserves to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to the entire amount reflected in the official records. 4. Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 would jointly submit that the matter in dispute can be decided by the committee constituted by the State Government and the petitioner should have approached before the said committee for redressal of his grievance. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders may be passed to this effect and the petitioner will approach before the committee and the committee may be directed to decide the case of the petitioner within a stipulated period. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the entire record. 4 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to approach before the committee (High Power Pension Redressal Commitee) constituted by the State Government along with a copy of this writ petition and other relevant documents for grant of his GPF amount within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in turn the committee is directed to decide the case of the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the case of the petitioner. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE