Balkrishna Sharma vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.

The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

It is therefore most humbly prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed with costs by issuance of a writ order or direction for making the payment of G.P.F. of the petitioner along with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from the date the petitioner became entitled for payment till it is actually paid and any other relief in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents which this Hon''ble Court deems fit in the fact and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted.

For the same relief earlier petitioner filed Original Application No. 1548/2001 before M.P. State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal disposed of the original application on 21.5.2002. The grievance as canvassed by the petitioner is that in his service record an entry was erroneously made which shows withdrawal of Rs. 15000/- in the name of another Balkrishna Sharma. The Tribunal opined that the respondents have realized the mistake and, therefore, they shall correct the same. The OA was disposed of with the direction that payment as per entitlement with interest be made. A review petition was filed but, on abolishment of the Tribunal, was decided by this Court by Annexure P/3. This Court made it clear that no direction was given for any payment. The direction was for settlement of the claim as per entitlement along with interest.

Shri Arun Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the entry in Annexure P/1 (service record) coupled with the stand of the respondents before the Tribunal makes it clear that mistake had occurred and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs. 15000/- in the head of GPF.

Per Contra, Smt. Nidhi Patankar, learned Government Advocate submits that no doubt that an incorrect entry was made because of clerical error and on account of the fact that the name of petitioner and name of another person is same. However, despite making the incorrect entry, no actual payment was made nor the amount was withdrawn from the GPF account of the petitioner. In return and additional return, specific pleadings are made in this regard. It is contended by filing Annexure R-2 that due amount of GPF has been paid to the petitioner. The break up of said amount and recoveries etc. is shown.

In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no material on record to show that Rs. 15000/- were actually withdrawn from the account of the petitioner and, therefore, question of its repayment does not arise. The respondents have taken a categorical stand that despite making incorrect entry, such entry could not be translated into payment in favour of anybody else. The actual payment has already been made to the petitioner as shown in Annexure R/2. In absence of any material to show that Rs. 15000/- were paid less than the petitioner''s entitlement, no relief is due to the petitioner. This is also made clear by this Court while deciding the review petition by Annexure P/3. On the basis of aforesaid, no relief is due in this petition. Petition is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed.