IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11776 of 2011 Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, Son of Late Jagan Ram Gupta, Resident of Mohalla Shivpuri, C.P. Thakur Path, “Rajdhani Palace” Flat No.112, P.O. + P.S. Shastrinagar, District Patna-23. ... ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, “Sinchai Bhawan”, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, “Sinchai Bhawan”, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, “Sinchai Bhawan”, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Sone Canal Modernization Circle, Dihri, (Rohtas). 5. The Managing Director, Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Virchand Patel Path, Patna. 6. The District Provident Fund Officer, District Rohtas (Sasaram). 7. The Accountant General (A & E),Virchand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar. ... ... Respondents. ----------- 2. 22.7.2011. Heard Shri Manish Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Sanjna, learned A.C. to A.A.G.13, who appears on behalf of respondent nos.1,2,3,4 and 6/State and Shri Kamlesh Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5/Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation. None appeared on behalf of the respondent no.7/Accountant General. The petitioner, who retired with effect from 31.10.2010 as Assistant Engineer from the office of Superintending Engineer, Sone Canal Modernization Circle, 2 Dihri, Rohtas, has made a limited prayer to direct the respondents to take final decision on his representation contained in Annexures-2, 4 series and 7 series, which was filed before respondent no.5/Managing Director, Biahr State Tourism Development Corporation, Accountant General, Bihar and respondent no.6 respectively. The petitioner claims that his full amount of G.P.F. was not paid. While he was deputed to the office of respondent no.5, though deduction was made, it was not credited to the G.P.F. account of the petitioner and as such he has not received the full amount of G.P.F. Similarly, Rs.5,000/- was deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner, which was not correct and liable to be refunded to the petitioner immediately. Since the petitioner has made a limited prayer for directing the respondents for taking final decision on the representation filed by the petitioner, the court is of the opinion that writ petition can be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondent 3 nos.5 and 7 to redress the grievances of the petitioner in view of representation filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)