1. Vivian Bose, J, in a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India and others, 1956 SC 479 in his separate but concurring judgment while interpreting Article 14 of the Constitution of India, posed the following question: -

“(23) After all, for whose benefit was the Constitution enacted?...”

2. Thereafter, having posed the question, His Lordship answered the same in his inimitable words as under: -

“(23) ... I am clear that the Constitution is not for the exclusive benefit of Governments and States; it is not only for lawyers and politicians and officials and those highly placed. It also exists for the common man, for the poor and the humble, for those who have businesses at stake, for the "butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker”. It lays down for this land "a rule of law" as understood in the free democracies of the world. It constitutes India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic and guarantees in every page rights and freedom to the individual side by side and consistent with the overriding power of the State to act for the common good of all.”

3. The aforesaid statement of law made by His Lordship not only aptly but squarely applies and is extremely relevant to the facts of the present case in which a retired Government servant was extended the privilege of his GPF only after 17 years from the date of his superannuation that too on the intervention made by this Court, which are as under: -

4. The petitioner joined the Department of Tribal Welfare as Assistant Teacher on 13-3-1964 and stood superannuated on 31-12-2001 having an unblemished service career. When he claimed the amount of GPF, immediately thereafter it was not paid to him leading to filing of W.P.(S)No.7686/2007 which was disposed of by this Court directing the Pension Redressal Committee, Raipur to consider the case of the petitioner and take corrective steps on which the said Committee on 20-8-2009 directed the State authorities to reexamine the GPF account of the petitioner and his GPF dues be finalised immediately. But any how, the petitioner received the communication on 1-12-2015 stating minus balance of Rs.4,789/- in his PF account and case of the petitioner has been closed leading to filing of this writ petition before this Court.

5. In the reply filed by the Office of the Accountant General on 21-2-2017, minus balance was shown to be of Rs.1,09,395/-, whereas the reply filed by the Block Education Officer, who is the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the petitioner, shows the plus balance of Rs. 90,502/-. Ultimately, the Court directed the responsible officer of the Office of the Accountant General to be remain present in the Court and further directed filing of affidavit which was not filed. The Court called explanation why the affidavit has not been filed, on 12-1-2018 and ultimately, on 23-1-2018, when the matter was taken up, it was informed that an amount of Rs.17,321/- was found outstanding as on 31-12-2001 and adding interest, Rs.40,368/- has been released in favour of the petitioner as pension payment.

6. Retiral benefits are the accumulated savings of a lifetime of service rendered by the employee, therefore, the said savings are the property of the said Government servant within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Rather they are deferred portion of the earnings of the employee for which the State is only a trustee or a custodian under the relevant rules. Right to receive retiral benefit is a constitutional and valuable right of a Government servant and it is hardened benefit of an employee. (See Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar and others, 1971 (2) SCC 330, D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, Sudhir Chandra Sarkar v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and others, (1984) 3 SCC 369, State of W.B. v. Haresh C. Banerjee and others, (2006) 7 SCC 651, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Mangal Singh and others, (2011) 11 SCC 702,