AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The petitioner retired from service on 21.3.2000. It is averred in the Writ Petition that her date of enrollment in the Provident Fund Scheme was on 7.10.1968 with account No.Q.8087 and as on the date of her retirement an amount of Rs.3,67,358/- was shown to be due to her credit. The petitioner, in paragraph Nos.2 to 5 of the Writ Petition, has stated various details with regard to the delay in disbursement of DCRG and the complaints raised by the petitioner in that regard. According to the petitioner, to wreak vengeance against the petitioner, the 8th respondent in collusion with the other respondents illegally detained the entire PF amount due to the petitioner and the petitioner filed O.P.No.31423/2000, challenging the same. On 18.5.2000, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.14,247/-, allegedly, the PF amount due to the petitioner. The Writ Petition was disposed of by directing the Director of Public Instruction to take a decision in the matter as per Exhibit P1 judgment. Again the 5th respondent fixed an amount of Rs.10,342/- as due to the petitioner towards provident fund, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.P.No.19036/2002. The same was disposed of by Exhibit P2 judgment directing the 2nd respondent to look into the grievance of the petitioner.
It appears that in the meanwhile, the petitioner moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and a Chartered Accountant was appointed by the Forum. Based on the report of the Chartered Accountant, the Forum passed an order as per Exhibit P4 directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.69,706/- towards PF amount and interest, after deducting the amount already paid to the petitioner.
The petitioner challenged Exhibit P4 before the appellate forum to the extent to which it disallowed part of the claim and respondents also challenged the matter in appeal. The appeal filed by the respondents was allowed as the Forum was of the view that the District Forum lacks jurisdiction in the matter.
The petitioner is therefore challenging the proceedings Exhibit P3.
In the Writ Petition in ground B, the petitioner has shown various amounts due totaling to Rs.5,72,367/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Exhibit P3 order. It is submitted that in Exhibit P3 the amount is only reckoned from the year 1983-84 onwards whereas the petitioner entered service in 1966.
With regard to the said aspect, in paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated that the petitioner was contributing to KASEPF account from 1.6.1967 onwards and her PF account was Q.8087.
The petitioner''s case appears to be that a PF loan to the tune of Rs.2,02,504/- was availed by the petitioner. Apart from that non-refundable loan of Rs.1,70,170/- was also received. By relying upon the report of the teacher-in-charge produced as Exhibit P8(9), it is contended that the loan amount was repaid by the petitioner.
A reading of Exhibit P8(9), which is a letter from the teacher-in-charge of the petitioner show that an amount of Rs.2,02,504/- has been refunded towards the loan account. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner is right in submitting that an amount of Rs.2,02,504/- has been refunded by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent a contrary stand is taken. Therefore these aspects will have to be reverified. Exhibit P3 does not show the detailed reasons in support of the order. No reference is made to the loan taken by the petitioner and the refund made as now reported by the teacher-in-charge in Exhibit P8(9). The date from which the account is verified and the amount is calculated is also under dispute.
In the light of the above, the matter will have to be reconsidered by the Director of Public Instruction. Accordingly Exhibit P3 is quashed. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner and to the Headmaster of the school, so as to make available the details of the account of the petitioner in the school and appropriate decision will be taken after conducting a verification of the accounts along with the necessary records. Final order will be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The due amount will be quantified and disbursed to the petitioner along with statutory interest. In the light of the above, Exhibit P9 to P11 notices directing the petitioner to repay an amount of Rs.1,812/-, the alleged excess amount collected cannot survive and they are also quashed.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No costs.