The Writ Petition was not the appropriate remedy for challenging the bank statement and the compromise deed, and the Appellant needed to provide evidence to support his claims.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. The Appellant seeks to challenge the Order dated 14.02.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.9568/2018, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant herein.

2. Facts of the case reveal that the Appellant herein was appointed as a Driver with the Respondent herein in 1978. It is stated that in 1994, a charge sheet was issued against the Appellant herein and the Departmental Inquiry culminated into a penalty of his `removal from service' in 1995. It is stated that the Appellant was removed from service in 1995, i.e., after 17 years. It is stated that the statutory dues such as Provident Fund and Gratuity have not been released to him. It is stated that a circular was issued by the Respondent herein on 26.04.2018 seeking options from the employees to join the Pension Scheme, 1995. The Petitioner opted to join the Scheme and even got the requisite medical tests done, however his claim was rejected by the Respondent vide letter dated 03.07.2018. Challenging the said rejection letter and non-payment of Gratuity and Provident Fund, the Appellant herein approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.9568/2018.

3. Vide the Judgment impugned herein, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said Writ Petition. A reading of the Judgment impugned herein shows that the Appellant had restricted his claim only to release of his Provident Fund and gratuity and had not pressed his claim for pension. The learned Single Judge held:

a) That during the mediation proceedings the Respondent had produced a bank statement and the same has been filed by the Appellant in the Writ Petition showing that a sum of Rs.93,808.44/- was credited in the Account No.TLN 3002 which coincides with the amount claimed by the Appellant herein towards Provident Fund and Gratuity. The learned Single Judge has held that the Appellant herein has not been able to establish that the bank statement produced by the Respondent is forged or fabricated.

b) That a civil Suit, being 723/2002, was filed by the Respondent in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon in 2002 for recovery of Rs.1,54,414/- with interest against the Appellant herein wherein it is stated that the Appellant herein had availed a housing loan of Rs.75,000/- and an additional housing loan of Rs.25,000/- from the Respondent. The said loan was availed by the Appellant herein on the basis of personal guarantee of his wife and mortgage of his immovable property by deposit of its title deeds to secure repayment of the loan. The learned Single Judge has observed that in the plaint, it is stated that the Appellant had agreed to repay the loan with simple interest on reducing balance and that the Authorities have appropriated a sum of Rs.93,826.44/-, which was lying in the Provident Fund/Gratuity Fund of the Appellant, towards adjustment of the outstanding dues of the Appellant. The learned Single Judge further held that as per the plaint, after adjustment, a further sum of Rs.1,54,414/- became due and payable to the Bank. It is further held that the matter was compromised between the parties and a compromise deed dated 02.04.2005 was entered into between the parties under which it was agreed that the Appellant herein would pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the Bank by 30.04.2005.

4. On the basis of the above two grounds the learned Single Judge held that no material has been placed to the contrary by the Appellant herein and, therefore, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

5. In the present Appeal, the Appellant has once again raised the issue of non-payment of pension. The Appellant has also chosen to challenge the bank statement produced by the Respondent herein in the Mediation proceeding by stating that it was forged and fabricated. It is stated that the Bank has not produced any document regarding the housing loan transactions and the vehicle loan and, therefore, the Bank had not discharged its onus to show that any amount was payable by the Appellant herein