Smt. Shobha Upadhyay W/o Late Ram Kripal Upadhyay, Aged About 73 Years Address C/o v. 1 - The Accountant General
Case Details
1 YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.02 16:51:43 +0530 2025:CGHC:37310 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1676 of 2023 Smt. Shobha Upadhyay W/o Late Ram Kripal Upadhyay, Aged About 73 Years Address C/o Sarju Prasad Dwivedi, Radha Krishna Mandir Street -38, Sector-6, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Pin 490006 ... Petitioner versus 1 - The Accountant General (Lekha And Hakdari), A.G. Office Zero Point, Balodabazar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492005. 2 - The District Education Officer, Balod, District Balod C.G. Pin -491228 3 - The Block Education Officer, Tahsil Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh Pin 491228 4 - The Collector, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh. Pin 491226 5 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Pin -492015 (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 5 : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Harshal Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Vivek Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents No.2 to 5. 2 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari mandamus and direct the respondents to pay the amount of GPF with 24% interest immediately. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may he kind enough to direct the respondents to pay the compound interest 24% per annum from the date of the service of the employee for fatal delay of more than 50 years till the date GPF amount is paid to the petitioner. 10.3 That, the petitioner may also be kindly allowed a reasonable lump-sum compensation towards mental torture, injury suffered and humiliation for a long period of about 50 years delay and laches looking to the old age of the petitioner. 10.4 That, the cost may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner for no any fault and incurring litigation charges. 10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to direct the Respondents to provide compassionate appointment is the petitioner or any one of the entitled members of the deceased employee. 10.6 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the came may also kindly be granted.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is the 3 legally wedded wife of Late Ram Kripal Upadhyay, who was employed as a Teacher under the respondent No.3 and served from October 1964 to 30.06.1971 at Government Primary School, Markatola, Block Dondi, and lastly at Government Primary School, Pattarwahi, District Balod (C.G.). During his service, regular deductions were made towards his General Provident Fund (GPF) under Account No. MD-NMP/18512. The deceased employee passed away on 14.03.1994. Despite several representations and personal visits by the petitioner for release of GPF dues, the respondents have failed to settle the claim on the ground of non- availability of the GPF account book, service book, and claim application, as communicated vide letter No. Nidhi-4/302 dated 25.11.2020 by respondent No.1. The GPF amount is a statutory benefit and cannot be withheld or retained indefinitely. The delay of more than five decades is wholly unjustified and reflects gross negligence on the part of the respondents. Despite continuous correspondence, the legitimate claim of the petitioner remains unsettled. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the outstanding GPF amount of Rs.1,244/- with applicable interest in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh General Provident Fund Rules, 1958 read with Chhattisgarh GPF Rules, 1955. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's 4 husband served as a Teacher from October 1964 to 30.06.1971 at Government Primary School, Markatola, Block Doundi, District Balod (C.G.), and passed away on 14.03.1994. However, the amount of GPF due and payable to him has not been released to the petitioner, who is his legally wedded wife. It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware that GPF dues were pending, and upon learning of it, she submitted a representation dated 07.08.2021 seeking release of the said amount. In response, the District Education Officer, vide letter dated 26.08.2021, directed the Block Education Officer, Doundi, to take necessary steps. However, despite this communication, no payment has been made to the petitioner till date, compelling her to approach this Court. It is further submitted that in the return filed by the State, it has been stated in paragraph-11 that the service record of the deceased employee could not be traced, and hence the GPF cannot be paid. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this admission by the State clearly shows that the deceased employee or his widow cannot be held responsible for the non- availability of the service record. Therefore, denial of GPF payment on such a ground is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that their office has made repeated communications and sent memos/letters to the concerned State authorities seeking necessary details for processing the GPF claim. However, the 5 said communications have not been acted upon, and thus respondent No.1 cannot be held responsible for the delay in payment of GPF dues. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
Decision
perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is well settled that service benefits, particularly General Provident Fund (GPF), are not matters of bounty or gratuity, but are statutory entitlements of the employee or his legal heirs, payable within a stipulated time frame, preferably within one year from the date of retirement or death of the employee. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429, wherein it was held that the right to receive pension or gratuity is a statutory right. Once the employee retires, the amount becomes due and must be paid promptly. Delay in disbursement cannot be condoned, and interest on delayed payment becomes payable. 9. Although the present matter pertains to GPF and not pension, the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court applies with equal force, as GPF is also a statutory service benefit governed by the specific rules, including the Madhya Pradesh General Provident Fund Rules, 1958 read with Chhattisgarh GPF Rules, 1955. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the State, being 6 the custodian of service records, cannot escape its liability to disburse the GPF amount on the mere ground of loss or unavailability of service documents. It is also the duty of the State to inform the family members of the deceased employee about the entitlement to such benefits, which admittedly has not been done in the present case. 11. Accordingly, the respondent/State is directed to release the GPF amount due and payable to the deceased employee Late Ram Kripal Upadhyay, in favour of the petitioner, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with statutory interest as applicable under law. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge