IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.696 of 2006 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6544 of 2004 ====================================================== 1. The Regional Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bihar, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, R Block, Patna 2. The Assistant Commissioner (Accounts), the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bihar, Bhawishya Nidhi Bhawan, R Block, Patna .. Respondent No. 3 and 4 in the writ court .... .... Appellants Versus 1. Bageshwari Prasad Srivastava, s/o late Jaleshwar Prasad Srivastava, Resident of Mohalla-Saidpur, Lala Toli, P.S. Kadamkuan, District- Patna 2. Triveni Jha, s/o Sri Chandra Narayan Jha 3. Sharat Chandra Mishra, s/o late Yogeshwar Mishra 4. Gauri Shankar Jha, s/o Late Laxmi Kant Jha 5. Shiv Shankar Acharya, s/o Late Markandey Acharya 6. Ghanshyam Acharya, s/o Sri Yogendra Acharya 7. Mritunjay Raj Choudhary, s/o Late M.L. Roy Choudhary 8. Dev Nath Jha, s/o Yadu Nath Jha 9. Sanjay Kumar Jha, s/o Dr. Parmeshwar Jha 10. Radha Raman Jha, s/o Late Balendra Narayan Jha 11. Bimlendu Kumar Jha, s/o Late Ghanesh Chandra Jha No.2 to 11 are residents of Mohalla-Defence Colony, P.S. Kankarbagh, Distt-Patna Petitioner in the writ Court .... .... Respondents 1st Party 12. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Labour, New Delh 13. The State of Bihar, through the secretary, Department of Labour, New Secretariat, Patna 14. The News Paper and Publication Ltd. Fraser Road, Patna through its Director-in-Chief 15. Sri Madan Mohan Jha, the acting Secretary- cum-authorized Signatory of Provident Fund Newspaper and Publication Ltd., Fraser Road, Patna 16. Sri Chandra Sekhar Jha, Accounts Officer-cum-authorized Signatory, Newspaper and Publication Ltd. Fraser Road, Patna .. Respondent in the Writ Court … Respondents IInd Party ====================================================== 21 15-11-2011 I.A. No.4445 of 2009 is taken up for hearing. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has no objection for impleading the applicant as party -respondent shown in the said I.A. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.07.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6544 of 2004 in which assessment of Rs. 8.50 crores as a claim towards the provident fund including the amount of gratuity is also questioned. The main contention of the appellant Commissioner is that the ‘amount assessed’ is of lesser value whereas the ‘amount due’ is of higher value which is subject to calculation of the concerned authorities. After having heard both sides, we are satisfied with the contention raised by the learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the ‘amount due’ should be calculated alongwith ‘admitted dues’ by the appellant Corporation and it is left over upon the authorities to assess the amount as per the records available and if it is exceeds the amount of Rs.8.50 crores then the authorities must resolve the issue with the respondent by recovery of such amount in accordance with law. Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the gratuity amount also have to the resolved, we are of the opinion that the said issue has to be resolved by the competent authority of the corporation in accordance with law. So far as release of the total due amount is concerned, it must be continued and the arrangement made by this Court earlier must also be continued. The stay order granted by this Court is accordingly modified. With the above observation, the appeal stands disposed of. ASHWINI /- (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)