Uma Chauhan And Ors vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] Heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondent No.1, a mere formal respondent. Also heard Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and 3 and Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondents No.4 and 5.

[2] The original petitioner by means of this writ petition has urged to recalculate the retirement benefits and pay the entire sum with interest. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner namely, Ranjit Chouhan expired leaving the substituted writ petitioners behind.

[3] Since it is the main question is in respect of the property entitled to the original writ petitioner, the substituted writ petitioners have the right to continue the action. The petitioner has given a brief resume of the relevant facts including the existence of a departmental proceeding culminating into an order of stoppage of 2 (two) increments.

[4] A sum of Rs.62,000/- was due to be withdrawn as the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) w.e.f. 16.10.2004 when the original petitioner namely, Ranjit Chowhan retired from the service of the respondents No.2 and 3. The said amount was not paid. Moreover, the respondents No.2 and 3 did not pay a sum of Rs.98,006/- as the arrears of pay and allowance. But in their reply, they have stated that the said amount has been paid.

[5] On instruction, Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3, today has made a categorical statement in the court that the said averment appearing in the reply is not the correct reflection of facts said sum of Rs.98,006/-has not been received by the original petitioner and hence, the substituted writ petitioners are entitled to get the said amount.

[6] Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel has further stated that from the account prepared by the Chief Accounts Officer of the Tripura Road Transport Corporation (TRTC, in short), Annexure-III to the reply of the respondent No.2 and 3, it would appear that the original petitioner was entitled to get a sum of Rs.98,006/- but that was not paid for some confusion. Now, there is no embargo in meeting that claim.

[7] However, as regards the entitlement of Rs.62,000/-form the G.P.F. account, Mr. B. Majumder, learned counsel has submitted that since the matter has become antiquated as by the passage of time the records relating to the said EPF subscriptions have been destroyed and no other records can possibly be found.

[8] In response to the said statement, Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has brought before this Court a communication issued by the Managing Director, TRTC to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 10.02.2019, Annexure-C3, where it has been categorically observed by the Managing Director, TRTC as follows :

"Kindly refer to the reference and subject mentioned above. In this context, I wish to inform you that the above employee (Ranjit Chowhan) of the corporation has been complaining since long that an amount of Rs.62,000/- has been shown as withdrawal from the said employer's CPF A/C during the year 2002-03 as per the annual statement of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Agartala for that year in Form No.23 but in fact he had not withdrawn the same as reported."

Thereafter, a categorical assertion has been made in this letter dated 10.02.2009 as follows :

"therefore, kindly verify your records and inform us as to who has withdrawn the said amount of Rs.62000/- and send us the photo copies of the Withdrawal Form and the Application Form so that we can verify the signatures with our records as another employee is also there in the same name."

[9] Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3 has specifically stated that in response to the said communication dated 10.02.2009, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner did not supply any record or stated anything.

[10] Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel has further shown from the reply filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that the deceased member Ranjit Chowhan had been denied the withdrawal of Rs.62000/- from his EPF A/C No.NE/AGT/741/427 in the year 2002-2003. Therefore, it is apparent on the face of the averments and the record (the communication) that till 2002-2003, the amount of Rs.62,000/- was in the EPF account of the original petitioner. The respondents No.4 and 5 did not produce any record with the reply or otherwise to show that the said amount was paid to the original petitioner or the substituted petitioners.

[11] Having observed thus, this court is of the view that the respondents No.2 and 3 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.98,006/- in terms of the due drawn statement prepared by the Chief Accounts Officer, Tripura Road Transport Corporation (TRTC) as the arrears of pay and allowances. The said amount shall be paid by the respondents No.2 and 3 within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today to the substituted petitioners without asking for any further document with interest @5% per annum the last due date. It is made absolutely clear, that if this amount is not paid within 6 (six) weeks from today, the said amount shall carry interest @9% per annum till the payment is made.

Similarly, the respondents No.4 and 5 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.62,000/- from the EPF account of the original petitioner, as the original petitioner did not withdraw any amount from his EPF account, within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today with interest @5% per annum from the due date. If the said amount is not paid within the stipulated time, it shall carry interest @9% per annum from the due date till the payment is made.

[12] In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no further order as to costs.

A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 and Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondents No.4 and 5.