K.K. Subrahmanyan vs The Tahsildar and Others

Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner retired as a Deputy Tahsildar on 31/5/2003. His grievance is that inspite of his retirement as early as in 2003, he has not been paid his dues towards General Provident Fund, benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme, Family Benefit Scheme and the revised pension with arrears. According to the petitioner, although he has submitted all documents necessary for processing his claims, respondents 4 and 5 have not taken up his claim with the Accountant General, and that as a result thereof, the amounts due to the petitioner still remains unpaid.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk from whose office the petitioner retired from service. According to the Tahsildar, before joining the 1st respondent''s office, petitioner had worked in more than 13 offices. It is stated that to settle his claim towards GPF, SLI and GIS, details credited to each account is essential to calculate and submit the claim amount. 1st respondent says that among the 14 offices, only 5 offices have furnished his account details till date and therefore, he could not calculate and submit the claim amount. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for GPF dues is concerned, it is stated that the submission of a closure application with the signature and thumb impression of the person concerned is an essential requirement, and that despite requests made, the petitioner has not submitted a closure application. In so far as the pension revision claimed by the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that if the petitioner has to be assigned seniority, since seniority list is not available in the office, it is open to the petitioner to submit the details, so that necessary entires can be made in the service book and that the matter can be taken up with the Accountant General to consider the issue of authorising payment of this claim as well.

Therefore, from the submissions thus made by the 1st respondent in the counter affidavit, it can be seen that the 1st respondent is not disputing the claim of the petitioner for payment of the terminal benefits as claimed by him. Completion of procedural requirements is projected as the obstacle for settlement of the claims.

As far as the collection of details in the office where the petitioner had previously worked is concerned, petitioner being a retired employee cannot be made to suffer on account of delay, if any, in collecting the details from his earlier offices. If in response to the 1st respondent''s letters, details were not furnished by the respective officers, instead of expressing his helplessness in the matter, 1st respondent should have taken up the matter with the higher authorities and compelled the officers in charge of the respective offices to furnish the details. This has not been done by the 1st respondent, and therefore, the helplessness expressed by the 1st respondent in this respect cannot be appreciated.

In so far as the submission of the closure application of GPF is concerned, although it is the case of the petitioner that he submitted the closure application in time, nothing has been placed before this Court to accept this contention. Therefore, the petitioner will have to submit a duly filled up closure application with the signature and thumb impression complete in all respects, in which event, it is directed that the 1st respondent will take necessary action to enable the petitioner to receive his dues towards GPF.

Similarly, in respect of assignment of seniority is concerned, the details of which are stated to be in absent in the office of the 1st respondent, petitioner has produced as Ext.P13, a communication issued from the office of the Additional Land Revenue Commissioner to the District Collector dated 28/10/2006. This communication shows that in the seniority list of Tahsildars for the period 01/04/2001 to 31/12/03, petitioner''s seniority has been revised and he has been included at Sl. No. 241. Thus, the seniority position of the petitioner is evident from this communication. Therefore, the absence of seniority position which is the reason mentioned in para 8 of the counter affidavit appears to be clarified with the letter referred to above. Therefore, the 1st respondent will take further action on the basis that the petitioner was included at Sl. No. 241 of the seniority list referred to above. It is directed that in order to enable the 1st respondent to take up the matter with the Accountant General, if any procedural formalities is to be complied with by the petitioner, it will be open to the 1st respondent to call upon the petitioner to comply with such procedural formalities, and once the petitioner complies with those formalities, the 1st respondent will take up the matter with the Accountant General also.

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(1) Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent.

(2) On receipt of the copy of this judgment, the 1st respondent will address the previous offices where the petitioner has worked requiring the respective officers to furnish the details which are necessary for processing the claim of the petitioner. Reference will be made to the directions of this Court as contained in this judgment. Details will be obtained and thereupon the claim of the petitioner will be processed by the 1st respondent.

(3) In so far as the GPF dues claimed by the petitioner is concerned, it is directed that the petitioner shall submit a closure application. If such a closure application is filed, the 1st respondent will process the claim of the petitioner in order to enable the petitioner to receive payment of his GPF dues as well.

(4) As far as the petitioner''s claim for revised pension based on reassigning of his seniority is concerned, it is directed that the 1st respondent will act upon Ext.P13 referred to above, and if necessary, call upon the petitioner to furnish further details, which if furnished, the matter will be processed and taken up. The matter shall be processed and claims to be taken up with respondents 4 and 5 and the dues to the petitioner shall be settled, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months of production of a copy of this judgment.