02.09.2026 rpan/08 WPCT 188 of 2026 Tanmoy Ranjan Paul – Versus – Union of India & Others Mr. Sanjib K. Mukhopadhyya, Mr. Timir Kanti Biswas, Ms. Nargish Parveen … for the Petitioner. Mr. Rabi Prosad Mookherjee, Ms. Sayani Roy Chowdhury, Ms. Biswadeepa Mondal … for the UoI/Respondents. Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record. The present writ petition has been preferred by the original applicant/petitioner herein, namely, Tanmoy Ranjan Paul (in short, Tanmoy) challenging an order dated 9th September, 2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application (in short, OA), being OA/350/0384/2025 dismissing the OA. The said OA was preferred by Tanmoy primarily challenging an order dated 11th March, 2025 passed by the respondent no.3 herein. Records would reveal that Tanmoy applied for withdrawal of Rs.12,00,000/-from his GPF account no. PTC-116538 for his daughter’s higher education. Upon considering the said application, sanction was accorded under the General Provident Fund (Central Service) Rules, 1960 (in short, the said Rules) to withdraw an amount of Rs.6,82,000/-. Tanmoy thereafter submitted a further representation praying for withdrawal of 90% of his GPF amount. In response thereto, the respondent no.3 issued a memo dated 11th March, 2023 stating inter alia that the amount of Rs.6,82,000/- was correctly sanctioned by the office. Aggrieved thereby, the OA has been filed. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for Tanmoy submits that Tanmoy is presently aged about 55 years. The amount, as claimed, is desperately required for the higher education of his daughter. The prayer is not unreasonable in view of the present expenditure that is to be incurred for the purpose of higher education of wards. Placing reliance upon a master circular issued liberalizing the provisions of withdrawal/drawal of advance from the GPF by the subscribers vide memo dated 20th October, 2023, he strenuously argues that in view of such liberalization, the provisions under the said Rules ought to have been relaxed. Such argument, as advanced, was glossed over by the learned Tribunal and no finding was returned on the same. Such infirmity warrants interference of this Court. 2 Mr. Mookherjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, however, denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Mukhopadhyay and submits that the respondents are bound by the Rules framed. The Master Circular pertaining to the liberalization dated 20th October, 2023 does not make any provision towards grant of 90% withdrawal in respect of the applications claiming such withdrawal on the ground of higher education of wards. The memo dated 20th October, 2023 and the said Rules provide inter alia that pertaining to education of family members the employees would be entitled to 12 months’ pay or 3/4th of the amount standing at credit ‘whichever is less’. In strict consonance of such provision, the amount has been calculated. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Indisputably, the twelve months’ pay of the petitioner is Rs.6,82,000/-. GID 7.2 & 7.3 under Rule 15 of the said Rules provide inter alia that in respect of education an employee would be entitled to withdraw upto 12 months’ pay or 3/4th of the amount standing at the credit, ‘whichever is less’. The said provision stands unaltered in the Master 3 Circular pertaining to liberalization. In the said conspectus, Tanmoy’s prayer was rightly discounted and we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. The learned Tribunal upon dealing with the factual issues arrived at a specific finding and we do not find any error in the same warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ petition, being WPCT 188 of 2026 is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 4