IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17859 of 2009 ANANT PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE ANIRUDH SINGH R/O VILL.- KHARAMPUR, P.S.- DESHARI, P.O.- CHAKMAGOLA, DISTT.- VAISHALI ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER, REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PROVIDENT FUND DIRECTORATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PANT BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER, VAISHALI, HAZIPUR. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI, HAZIPUR. 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (DISTRICT & ESTABLISHMENT) COLLECTORATE, VAISHALI, HAZIPUR. 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, MAHUA, DISTT.- VAISHALI, HAZIPUR. 7. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, BIDUPUR, VAISHALI, HAZIPUR. 8. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, PATEPUR, VAISHALI, HAZIPUR. ---Respondents ----------- 4. 18.3.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State. Despite availing time twice, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. The grievance of the petitioner, who claims to be aged about 71 years and has superannuated on 31st of January, 1996 from the post of Circle Inspector while working in the office of the Circle Officer, Mahua, District Vaishali, Hajipur, is that the provident fund dues have not been correctly calculated and paid to him. It is submitted that the petitioner joined the service on 12.12.1958 and retired on 31st of January, 1996. The Circle Officer, Mahua, vide his letter contained in Memo no.505 dated 9.5.2007 (Annexure 3) informed the petitioner that the provident fund dues payable to him is Rs.4,455/- only. It is submitted that aforesaid 2 amount is absolutely incorrect since several deductions made from the salary of the petitioner while he was posted under different Circle Officers have not been taken into consideration. In fact, the petitioner is in possession of the materials to substantiate that the above amount of Rs.4,455/- as offered to him towards the G.P.F. is not correct. Learned counsel for the State submits that if the petitioner disputes the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,455/- as offered on account of G.P.F., it will be open for the petitioner to place his claim before the District Magistrate, Vaishali, Hajipur (respondent no.4) with supporting materials. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the old age of the petitioner and for expeditious disposal of his grievances with regard to the payment of the provident fund dues, the petitioner proposes to put up his claims by way of representation before the District Magistrate, Vaishali, Hajipur (respondent no.4). In case such a representation is filed stating the details of his claims as also enclosing the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of such claims along with the certified copy of the present order within a period of six weeks, respondent no.4 shall consider the grievances of the petitioner with regard to the payment of the provident fund dues after verifying the deductions towards G.P.F. made from the salary of the petitioner while the petitioner was posted under different Circles in the district of Vaishali. Upon consideration, respondent no.4 shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously, 3 preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation. Respondent no.4 shall take all possible steps to ensure that the correct amount of provident fund is paid to the petitioner with statutory interest as per rule. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)