High Court · 2012

On the oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Director General of Police, Assam is allowed to be impleaded as party respondent No.8 in the present writ petition, who is represented by Mr. Nizamuddin, learned State c ounsel. The petitioner, who has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuat ion on 30th November, 2008, by the present petition has prayed for a direction t o the respondent authorities to pay the amount of Rs.1,11,396/- with interest, c ontending inter alia that though after his retirement he was entitled to receive the said amount towards GPF, he has not been paid the said amount till date des pite sanction of the amount for payment. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the averments made in the writ petition as well as the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the responde nt Nos.5, 6 and 7 has submitted that as the order sanctioning the aforesaid amou nt for payment to the petitioner was passed, which is evident from the communica tion dated 26th July, 2010 issued by the Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General (A&E) to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of As sam, Education Department, which has also been admitted by the respondents in th e affidavit-in-opposition filed, apart from the admission that the amount has no t been paid to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the aforesaid amount with interest, as he has been illegally deprived from enjoyment of the property belonging to him. The learned counsel further submits that it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, the respondent No.7, that the amount was wit hdrawn and deposited in the account of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, being th e drawing and disbursing officer, and though the cheque for the said amount was issued in favour of the petitioner, the said amount, however, has not been given to him. Mr. Choudhury, learned standing counsel, Education Department has also submitted that though the aforesaid amount was sanctioned for payment to the petitioner a gainst the GPF, the same, however, has not been paid. It has also been submitte d that some officers in the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools has misapp ropriated a huge amount including the amount sanctioned for payment to the petit ioner for which an FIR was lodged, on the basis of which Hailakandi PS Case No.3 77/2009 has been registered, investigation into which is still going on. Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Finance Department has submitted that the a mount of Rs.1,11,396/- sanctioned by the Government has infact been withdrawn by the Deputy Inspector of Schools for disbursement to the petitioner. The learned counsel, however, has submitted that it is not within the knowledge of the Trea sury Officer as to whether the said amount has been disbursed to the petitioner or not by the Deputy Inspector of Schools. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed has submit ted that the aforesaid amount was withdrawn from the Treasury and was deposited in the account of the Deputy Inspector of Schools under his signature and therea fter, the cheque was issued by him for the said amount in favour of the petition er, which, however, has not been handed over by the Dealing Assistant, for which the aforesaid police station case has been registered. The learned counsel als o submits that though the petitioner is entitled to the aforesaid amount, the sa me has not been disbursed. There is no dispute to the entitlement of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,11, 396/- towards the GPF, which has also sanctioned by the Government for payment t o the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly has not been paid the said amount, though he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th No vember, 2008. It also appears that there was allegation of misappropriation of the money sanctioned for payment to the retired teachers including the petitione r, for which the FIR has been lodged, on the basis of which the aforesaid police station case has been registered. The investigation into the said police stati on case is stated to be going on for last about 3(three) years. There is, howev er, no allegation against the petitioner, That being the position and there being no dispute relating to the entitlement o f the petitioner to the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,11,396/- towards the GPF, the r espondents, more particularly, the respondent No.1, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department, is directed to p ay the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,11,396/- to the petitioner within 1(one) month f rom today with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the entitlement till the date of payment. The interest payable shall also be paid to the petitioner wit hin the aforesaid period of 1(one) month. It is needless to say that the amount payable to the petitioner pursuant to the direction issued by this Court by this order can be recovered from the erring of ficials. The Director General of Police is directed to ensure early completion of proper investigation into Hailakandi PS Case No.377/2009, so that the person found to b e responsible for misappropriation of public fund can be brought to book and als o to ensure filing of the report as required under Section 173 Cr. P.C. in the a ppropriate criminal Court. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as indicated above. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Choudhury, learned standing counsel, Ed ucation Department and Mr. Nizamuddin, learned State counsel.