IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4546 of 2002 1. TRIPTI NARAYAN CHOUDHARY S/O Late Raj Narayan Choudhary, Vill-Sahora, P.O- Anandpur, Distt-Darbhanga. 2. Shyam Jha S/O Late Maharudra Jha,R/O,Vill+P.O-Sanahpur, Distt- Darbhanga. 3. Krishna Kant Choudhary S/O Late Janardan Choudhary, R/O Vill+P.O-Dih Taroni, Distt-Darbhanga. 4. Bisheshwar Prasad S/O Kishun Prasad,R/O Mohalla-Azad Path, Gali No.4,Chandmari Road, Patna. 5. Kirani Das S/O Late Bisun Das R/O Vill-Soniam, P.O-Khushalpur, Distt- Nalanda. 6. Madan Prasad S/O Late Shivji Prasad R/O Mohalla-Post Office Gali, Anisabad, Patna. 7. Raj Bihari Roy S/O Late Ganesh Roy R/O Vill+P.O-Barkadiyan, Distt- Buxar…………………Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through Secretary, Building Construction Department. 2. Managing Director, Patna Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, Patna-4. 3. Industrial Development Commissioner, Department of Industry, New Secretariat, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department,Circle- Arrah (Bihar) 5. Executive Engnieer, Building Division, Building Construction Department,Bhabhua (Bihar) 6. Director, G.P.F., Pant Bhawan, Patna………………………………Respondents. ----------- For petitioners:-Mr.Jitendra Prasad Singh, Adv. For Respondents:-GP-9 ---------- 4/ 3-Dec-08 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for Respondent 2 No.2, Patna Industrial Area Development Authority(PIADA)and State of Bihar. The petitioners were earlier employees of Construction Cell of Industries Department and later their services were transferred and became employees of Respondent No.2 (PIADA). By a subsequent decision the Construction Cell of the Industries Department along with its employees i.e. the petitioners was merged in the department of Building Construction of the State of Bihar. As employees of PIADA the petitioners were contributing to C.P.F but subsequently as employees of Building Construction Department they became members of G.P.F and therefore the earlier contributions of C.P.F along with interest was required to be deposited in the proper account of the State Government. For that the Industries Department through letter dated 5.7.1996 (Annexure-4) made a request to the Managing Director of PIADA. That letter is clear in directing PIADA to deposit in the account of the State Government the contributory provident fund amount deducted along with interest and also to furnish full details of such amounts to the Building 3 Construction Department as well as G.P.F Directorate and Industries Department. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents No.2 a categorical stand has been taken in paragraph-16 that on the request of employees of Construction and Planning Cell the C.P.F amount has been put in fixed deposit and after its maturity the C.P.F has been deposited in petitioners’ G.P.F account with interest. It has been clarified in that paragraph that there are about 73 employees of Construction and Planning Cell posted in PIADA and after deduction of advances the remaining balance amount with interest in respect of those employees have already been deposited. On behalf of petitioners a reply has been filed taking a stand that the interest component deposited by PIADA is not in accordance with the rate of interest prescribed for C.P.F contribution. On the other hand, from the counter affidavit of PIADA it appears that on the request of the employees the deducted amount was kept in fixed deposit and the entire interest has been credited to the employees. In the facts 4 of the case, considering that principal as well as accrued interest has already been deposited by PIADA as per direction contained in Annexure- 4 this Court is not inclined to interfere. If the interest component deposited by PIADA is against rules of C.P.F and petitioners are entitled for higher interest they may move the appropriate authority that can look into grievance relating to non payment of interest under C.P.F. If such dispute is raised by the petitioners before competent authority the same shall be decided by that authority in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within four months. The writ petition is disposed of. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)