IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4423 of 2010 MADAN MOHAN SINGH, SON OF LATE HANSRAJ SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BASAIYA, P.S. SIKANDARA, DISTRICT- JAMUI. … PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SRI ANJANI KUMAR SINGH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS THE COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. SRI ASHUTOSH KUMAR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. SRI VIDYA SAGAR SINGH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, JAMUI. 5. SRI I.D.S. DHARIWAL, PRESENTLY POSTED AS THE ACCOUNTANT GERNAL, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 5. 01.04.2011 The present M.J.C. application has been filed for violation of the order passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal no. 439 of 2010 dated 24.8.2010, wherein a direction has been given to the authorities of the State to ensure payment of the retrial dues. A show cause has been filed by the State enclosing letter dated 9.11.2010 (Annexure-1), letter dated 15.10.2007 (Annexure-2) and also letters of the Department dated 26.3.2008 and 5.5.2008 to show compliance of the order of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the orders have been passed for - 2 - payment of the retiral benefits but till date no payments have been made to the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader submits that part of the retiral benefits have been paid and steps have been taken to pay the G.P.F. amount as also balance of the other dues if the petitioner shows the relevant papers to respondent no.2. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has received the G.P.F. amount without calculation of interest and disputed that payment of G.P.F. amount has been made but interest thereof has not been paid. Under the above circumstances, it would suffice if a direction is issued to the concerned authorities to pay the aforesaid amount within four weeks. This Court orders accordingly. Government Pleader submits that he would take advice from the concerned officer to ensure such payments. The Government Pleader has submitted that some payments have been made including the G.P.F. amount. If said fact has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the interest has not - 3 - been paid on the delayed payment, in the opinion of this Court it would suffice to say that the petitioner has to make a representation before the concerned authority with regard to non-payment of any retiral dues including the interest on the part of the GPF and the same should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. With the above observations, this application is disposed off. Ibrar/Bhardwaj (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)