1 2025:CGHC:58484 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5324 of 2023 1 - Ramji Ram Manjhi S/o Late Ramvilas Manjhi Aged About 73 Years R/o Sattipar, Nehru Ward, Ward No. 21, Ambikapur, Ps And Post Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Controller And Auditor General (Treasury, Accounts And Pension) New Delhi 3 - Accountant General State Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Senior Accounts Officer Office Of The Accountant General, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Deputy Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Shubhak Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Resp. No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 02/12/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders for quashing/setting aside the impugned Notices Dated 02.04.2012 (Annex. P/1), Notice Dated 02.12.2013 (Annex. P/3), Notice Dated 10.11.2012 (Annex. P/7) & Notice Dated 24.04.2023 (Annex. P/8) passed by the Respondent Authority (Varisth Lekha Adhikari) and the respondents may kindly be directed to finalize the GPF and they may further be directed to pay the full amount of gratuity along with the interest to the petitioner within stipulated period of time. 10.2That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders directing the respondents to consider and decide the issue relating to wrong calculation done in his computation sheet after giving him opportunity and by following the principles of Natural Justice as early as possible. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders to compensate the petitioner for his loss for around 12 years in light of Judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of "Angad Prasad Vishwakarma Vs. State of C.G. & Ors." passed in WP(S) No. 463/2017 10.4That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner began his career on 01.07.1968 as Manager of a Multipurpose Cooperative Society and 3 was later absorbed as an Assistant Teacher in the Tribal Welfare Department on 01.07.1974. He was promoted to Upper Division Teacher on 02.11.1977, subsequently to Head Master of a Middle School in 1989, then to Lecturer in 1991 with seniority from 21.09.1984, and finally to Principal of the Higher Secondary School, Navanagar, on 25.01.2008. He retired on 31.12.2011 after a distinguished service record. Following his retirement, the petitioner faced severe financial hardship as his General Provident Fund (GPF) amount had not been finalized. He was served with notices dated 02.04.2012 and 02.12.2013 stating a negative balance of Rs. 9,13,984/- in his GPF account, directing him to deposit the same unless objections were filed within two months. The petitioner submitted detailed replies on 16.05.2012, challenging the computation and providing amended calculations, but no corrective action was taken by the authorities. Over the years, he made repeated efforts to obtain certificates and clarifications from various authorities, including letters to the Chief Municipal Officer, Collectors, and the Accountant General, between 2014 and 2023, requesting verification and correction of his GPF account. Despite these efforts, no amended computation was provided, and the GPF and other retiral benefits, including gratuity, remain unpaid to date. The petitioner contends that the inaction of the authorities is arbitrary, discriminatory, and illegal, causing him financial distress despite his long and unblemished service. Multiple representations for redressal of his grievances have been ignored, prompting the filing of the present petition seeking finalization of his GPF and other retiral benefits. 4 3. Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the inaction and conduct of the respondent authorities are discriminatory, illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law. The petitioner, having committed no offence involving moral turpitude, cannot have his gratuity or other retiral benefits withheld. Reliance is placed on the Constitution Bench judgment in Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India (1956 SC 479), which emphasizes that the Constitution exists for the benefit of the common man and guarantees individual rights alongside the State’s powers. The petitioner’s retiral benefits, including GPF and gratuity, constitute accumulated savings of a lifetime’s service and are protected under Article 300-A as the State acts merely as a custodian. Judicial precedents, including State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Chander Sood (2016 SCC 77) and Angad Prasad Vishwakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh, recognize non-payment of retiral dues for extended periods as unconstitutional and harassing to retired employees. Furthermore, as held in General Manager, UCO Bank v. Jitendra Kumar Shrivastava (2016 2 CGLJ 351), gratuity cannot be withheld in the absence of misconduct or moral turpitude. The petitioner has repeatedly submitted detailed explanations and requested amended computation sheets, yet the authorities have continued to wrongly claim a negative balance of Rs. 9,13,984/-, issuing reminders in a malafide manner without affording him an opportunity of hearing or following due process as mandated under law. The action of the respondents is therefore arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the petitioner’s constitutional and statutory rights, and he 5 reserves the right to raise additional grounds and submit further documents during the course of proceedings. 4. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate and Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 4 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. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to approach before the committee (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 three weeks 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